Date:

01/01/03

Time:

04:07 PM

Comments

It would be surprising to find one American in ten who can recall exactly what Kenneth Starr's ballyhooed Whitewater investigation was alleged to be all about. It simply defies credibility that the United States government frittered away $60 million and squandered the energies of upwards of 100 FBI agents for seven years investigating a failed $200,000 dirt road real estate project before admitting it found no credible evidence of wrongdoing by President Clinton or his wife Hillary.

But we're told that our government has "lost" over three TRILLION dollars....just can't find it. Are we investigating that or trying to find it?? NO..... we are being told that they'll do their best to see that this doesn't happen again!!!! I should hope not!!! How many times will they have to lose three trillion dollars before they decide to investigate the matter??

And 9/11?? Not only did the Bush administration fail to investigate how and why it happened, how it could have been avoided, and who was ultimately responsible.....they warned people NOT to look into it. We should be asking ourselves WHY...what are they hiding? Was anybody better off because of 9/11 outside of Bush and his cronies. THINK about this, my friends. And go to www.google.com and look up Operation Northwoods.

Matilda

Date:

01/02/03

Time:

02:53 PM

Comments

From our illustrious leader!

Some U.S. allies say they fear Bush is too eager for war. Sensitive to the criticism, Bush bristled at the suggestion that war was inevitable. "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that," Bush told reporters. "I'm the person who gets to decide, not you. And I hope this can be done peacefully"

Date:

01/03/03

Time:

07:26 AM

Comments

The 2002 list of the most corrupt leaders in America. Amazing 12 out of 13 are Democrats:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/12/31/183345

Date:

01/03/03

Time:

07:30 AM

Comments

How ridiculous has North Korea made Bush look? He was swaggering all over the international playground terrorizing the other kids over weapons of mass destruction and disputes over U.N. inspectors in Iraq. Now the inspectors are in, no weapons of mass destruction have been found but Bush is sending troops over faster than he can deprive Floridians of their right to vote.

Now North Korea has tossed out weapons inspectors so it can build weapons of mass destruction in privacy and Bush suddenly has become a sniveling, weak-kneed appeaser in search of solutions through diplomatic channels. Don't get me wrong,I'm all for diplomatic solutions, but Bush has been shown up to a fraud. If Bush were a college football coach , he'd only schedule games against small schools with very weak teams because he's terrified by the thought of anything that even remotely approaches a real fight.

Barry Crimmins

Date:

01/03/03

Time:

09:13 AM

Comments

The Financial Times has determined that Dick Cheney's Halliburton (dba also as Brown & Root) did more business with Saddam than any other contractor, at an estimated total of at least $73 million in goods and services while Cheney was chairman and CEO of the Dallas-based company. In 2000, Cheney lied ON RECORD about the connection. Though he admitted doing business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, he claimed he had a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. I.e. He lied. "Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them." http://gwbush.com/spots/postpage.html

Date:

01/04/03

Time:

09:25 AM

Comments

"For 2003, Dubya has resolved to keep the fear-addled nation enmeshed in at least one senseless oily insanely expensive unwinnable war for at least the next two years, lining the pockets of his dad's Carlyle Group cronies with countless millions in oil and military contracts, slamming the environment and mispronouncing "nukuler" and misrepresenting himself all over the English dictionary and embarrassing the nation almost daily."

Mark Morford

Date:

01/04/03

Time:

10:21 AM

Comments

We are expected to spend billions on a risky missile defense system that is supposed to shoot missiles out of the sky (potentially detonating in or over other countries), but one of the most secure locations on the planet, the Pentagon, could not be defended against a slow moving commercial jet. You're joking, right?

Date:

01/04/03

Time:

12:20 PM

Comments

The missile defense system is not all that risky. Choosing between "maybe" shooting down a missile over another country (more likely over one of the oceans) and letting one go ahdead and hit a populated target in the US, I'd pick the maybe choice.

A plane flying in US airspace with hundreds of others, seconds away from the Pentagon would be much harder to detect and destroy than a rocket (that we are watching for) that is launced from another country and flying for several minutes to it's target.

Besides, I thought all you liberals believed Bush planned the 911 attacks and the Pentagon attack never really happened.

Date:

01/04/03

Time:

03:46 PM

Comments

To the person wno posted the last comment, I would urge you to go to this article on the web and READ it. Then, I will be happy to exchange views with you....OK? http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14873

Matilda

Date:

01/05/03

Time:

10:49 AM

Comments

I'm still amazed that you people think President Bush planned the 911 attacks.

You are this generation's conspiracy nuts.

Date:

01/05/03

Time:

04:02 PM

Comments

While American troops wait anxiously for their upcoming orders regarding war in the Gulf, American citizens may want to know more about why an administration already steeped in secrecy and clandestine activity is withholding information which is politically embarrassing – or worse – from its citizens and Congress, not to mention its trusting soldiers.

For how can a president explain that while he was an advisor during his father’s administration, both knew about an Iraqi-operated nerve gas plant in Florida, that members of his father’s cabinet held financial investments and were linked to lawyers who drew up legal contracts for an Iraqi terrorist, and that CIA operatives then sent the manufacturing equipment and raw materials able to penetrate and break down American gas mask filters -- to Iraq -- which was then used months later on his own soldiers?

Tom Flocco

Date:

01/05/03

Time:

05:05 PM

Comments

It's an ugly legacy, and when administration spokesmen say Americans have no right to disagree, we need to respond with outrage. They'll also suggest we lack the knowledge or standing to speak out: Professors are academic eggheads. Religious leaders are unrealistic. Students are too young. Baby boomers are reliving the sixties. Immigrants are disloyal suspects. Celebrities are limousine liberals. We're conditioned to accept an impossibly perfect standard on political speech that dismisses everyone but the Kissingers and Rumsfields as insufficiently credentialed. We need the courage to challenge this standard, and recognize that we all have the right--and responsibility--to act.

Paul Logat Loeb

Date:

01/05/03

Time:

11:02 PM

Comments

Are you all UFO abduction nuts too?

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

04:02 AM

Comments

i found the 'newsmax' website rather entertaining: "12 out of 13 corrupt leaders are democrats" was one of the funniest, as well as one of the most pathetic attempts of anti-democrat propaganda i have read lately. the article was soo poorly written, it was obvious that the author was 'making things up' as they went along, not to mention that their writing skills ( and overall mentality) are on the level of a ill-tempered ten year old child . unfortunately, this form of mis-information has become the standard for the right wing media whose audiences will believe without hesitation anything and everything they are told. it is also worth noting that the "12 of 13 democrats" were never convicted in a court of law of any crime, quite unlike the lengthy roster of convicted-felon republicans who now are serving in very sensitive areas of the Bush government. let's not forget that Reagan lied under oath many times during his administration about issues a bit more serious than sexual infidelity. the right continues to slander the democrats with allegations which they have absolutely no evidence of, and yet are still very eager to spend millions of tax payer dollars to drag anyone they can get their hooks into through the mud. the only problem is that the republicans are covered in a lot of mud to begin with...not to mention all of the blood on their hands. thus, the right-wingers rely upon rhetoric, spreading rumors, and fabrication to keep it's members "fat and happy".

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

05:10 AM

Comments

has anyone else noticed the right-winger who is making statements about "conspiracy theories" and "UFO's"? this person is the typical example of a brainwashed victim of the right. notice that no one has actually said anything about 'Bush being personally responsible for 9-11', and why do they keep using the term 'nuts'? they obviously suffer from low self-esteem. perhaps this individual is dyslexic: what i read posted was that Bush did not follow through with a thorough investigation of what went wrong on 9-11. the author of the post in absolutely no way, shape or form said Bush caused the tragic events of sept.11 to occur. obviously, the right-winger has created this distortion of the fact into a fabrication, a common ploy used by the right. what is worth noting, however, and to complement the author of the original post, is that Bush dragged his feet for well over a year before finally creating an investigative team to study what went wrong. and to add 'insult to injury' Bush chose 'a friend of his fathers' who just happened to have been a central figure in the Watergate scandal to head the investigation. and perhaps our right-wing friend could comment on why Osama Bin Laden was taken off the 'most wanted list' after only three months, when there is proof that mr.Laden is still walking this earth? or the fact that the Bush family has 'old ties' in the oil business with several Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens. i wonder if the right-winger could even respond intelligently using complete sentences?

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

08:07 AM

Comments

I think I'm getting the picture. North Korea breaks all its nuclear agreements with the United States, throws out UN inspectors and sets off to make a bomb a year, and President Bush says it's "a diplomatic issue". Iraq hands over a 12,000-page account of its weapons production and allows UN inspectors to roam all over the country, and – after they've found not a jam-jar of dangerous chemicals in 230 raids – President Bush announces that Iraq is a threat to America, has not disarmed and may have to be invaded. So that's it, then.

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

04:35 PM

Comments

all that talk of war again Irak and you forget that at any case Irak has a president elected by almost all Irakois but we have a pressident who stoled the votes when he got less than have the votes. Gore is the reel pressident. I know were fihting for the oil indistres and they don't care what get in the way. Like when that boat crashed in alaska and all those pengwens got full of tar and now they want to drill their too.

Bob

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

04:55 PM

Comments

i found the 'alternet' website rather entertaining: "Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002" was one of the funniest, as well as one of the most pathetic attempts of anti-republican propaganda i have read lately. the article was so poorly written, it was obvious that the author was 'making things up' as they went along, not to mention that their writing skills ( and overall mentality) are on the level of a ill-tempered ten year old child . unfortunately, this form of mis-information has become the standard for the left wing media whose audiences will believe without hesitation anything and everything they are told.

Democrats are still very eager to spend millions of tax payer dollars to drag anyone they can get their hooks into through the mud. the only problem is that the Democrats are covered in a lot of mud to begin with...not to mention all of the blood on their hands. thus, the left-wingers rely upon rhetoric, spreading rumors, and fabrication to keep it's members on the welfare and Government doles to ensure votes in the next election.

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

05:24 PM

Comments

I am convinced that "right-winger guy" has been abducted by aliens from Plagiaria-Dyslexia.

Don't worry, RWG. Help is available.

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

09:01 PM

Comments

I love how Liberals find an article in a left wing web page or paper and then whip it out, thump on thier chest and say, "SEE

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

09:01 PM

Comments

"SEE, THIS IS FACT!"

Date:

01/06/03

Time:

09:16 PM

Comments

hmmm, how un-original: taking my statements and changing some words here and there...so typical of the right. you must be a very angry person if all you can do is behave immaturely and try to pick fights. i guess that is all you are capable of. however, you have provided a great example of how those on the right cannot defend their backwards views, so you try to hide behind the rhetoric of hate, avoiding any real debate. i challenge you to chose an issue and rationally defend your position. i bet you can't.

Date:

01/07/03

Time:

06:42 AM

Comments

Most recently activated American soldiers are unaware that they will likely be facing the same deadly chemical and biological agents provided illegally to Iraq by their own government just prior to the last Gulf War – and that high-ranking Bush 41 cabinet officials profited from secret investments in these companies manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. (WMD) To the full story

Date:

01/07/03

Time:

06:48 AM

Comments

Today, 06 January, 2003, CBS reports 99% of PresidentBush's tax break will go to the rich. The breakdown, as reported by Dan Rather on CBS NEWS:

74% goes to Americans making one million dollars per year, or more;

25% goes to Americans making $100,000 dollars per year, or more;

1% goes to Americans making $25-99,999 dollars per year;

0% goes to Americans making anything under $25,000 per year.

(Thanks to Ron Harold for passing on these sad facts)

Date:

01/07/03

Time:

11:25 AM

Comments

Instead of creating more friends and fewer terrorists, Bush's policies are creating more terrorists and fewer friends. The test for Democrats will be to show how Bush has come to personify what many in the world dislike about the U.S. government – that it is too often arrogant, ill-informed and trigger-happy.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/010603a.html

Date:

01/07/03

Time:

02:54 PM

Comments

Yeah, I would believe Ultra Liberal Dan Rather.

92 Million Americans will receive tax breaks under President Bush's plan. A family of 4 making $39,000 a year will recieve a tax break of $1100.

Why do you think the people making more money would get more from a tax break? Maybe because they are the ones paying a higher percentage of the taxes.

Jusy like a liberal to expect someone who pays no taxes to get money back from the government!

It's MY money!! Let me decide where I spend it, not the Goverment. The reason we have deficit spending is because of Government waste. Give the tax money back to the people that are paying it - the ones that work and pay the majority of the taxes.

Date:

01/07/03

Time:

09:48 PM

Comments

Speaking of:

http://www.ratherbiased.com/

Date:

01/07/03

Time:

09:49 PM

Comments

This too:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/6/6/124642

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

07:04 AM

Comments

I just read something that made me shudder. It's from the United Nations:

*UN prepares for huge Iraqi casualties* <http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2636835.stm>

"Up to 500,000 people could suffer serious injuries during the first phase of an attack on Iraq, says a confidential UN estimate."

Let's not forget that these people have been suffering for years because of the sanctions. They are helpless in the clutches of a tyrant like Sadam. If you read this and think "Good...serves them right"....there's not much else I can say to you.... except "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

07:39 AM

Comments

You're right. We need to invade Iraq and rid them of Saddam before he spreads his evil elsewhere.

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

08:47 AM

Comments

hmmm, how un-original: taking my statements and changing some words here and there...so typical of the left. you must be a very angry person if all you can do is behave immaturely and try to pick fights. i guess that is all you are capable of. however, you have provided a great example of how those on the left cannot defend their backwards views, so you try to hide behind the rehtoric of hate, avoiding any real debate. i challenge you to chose an issue and rationally defend your position. i bet you can't.

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

03:17 PM

Comments

5% of taxpayers pay half of all taxes, while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 5% of income taxes. I guess it takes a liberal to understand the fairness there. Regarding the results of taxes, you may want to review your recent history. The 1990 luxury tax pushed by Mrs Kennedy and Mitchell not only brought in much less than anticipated, but it also caused Luxury boat sales to plummet by 70%, and thousands lost their jobs in the yatch manufacturing sector. It happened that many of those jobs were in Maine and Massachussets. Maybe one of the liberal geniuses here can explain why the Democrat led congress voted to repeal the luxury tax on everything but cars, and why Pres. Clinton signed the repeal of the luxury tax on cars. It is probably too much to ask for liberals to use the logic and apply it to the present situation.

Speaking of unintended consequences, you may find it interesting to read a little further back in history and study the policies of Sirs Chamberlain and Daladier, and the well known results.

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

04:28 PM

Comments

yeah, i would believe ultra conserva-nazi Rush Limbaugh.

9.2 million white americans will receive tax exemptions under idiot Bush's scam. a wealthy white family of 4 making $390,000 a year will receive a tax break of $110,000.

what do you think the corporate criminals embezzling more money would get even more from a tax scam? maybe because they are the one's avoiding paying taxes at all.

just like a conserva-nazi to ensure someone who is wealthy to hide money from the government. it's MY money! let me keep all of it and let the underprivileged pay the bill. the reason we have deficit spending is because of republican waste.

give the money back to the wealthy that has been scamming it - the one's whose dirty work keeps them from paying taxes.

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

04:33 PM

Comments

I love how conservatives fabricate information on their right wing websites or propaganda papers and whip it out, thump their bibles and say, "SEE".

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

04:45 PM

Comments

yea, those liberals! let's blame them for everything. so what if luxury yachts declined by, supposedly,70%. big deal . how many farmers lost their jobs and land thanks to the republicans? or how about the thousands of air-traffic controllers Reagan fire back in the 80's? don't you think that corporate greed and unethical business practices is damaging to the economy? i would like to hear the logic behind why the right defends their actions, and why they condemn the left when they do the exact same thing. GOP-ocracy and double standards.

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

09:23 PM

Comments

How old ARE you?

Date:

01/08/03

Time:

09:29 PM

Comments

Who signs more payroll checks? People making $500,000 or $1,000,000 a year or someone making $25,000 a year? Give the tax breaks to those that are providing jobs for people or they may lay them off.

If you my wages go down, I promise the first thing I will do is save money by laying off a few people that are making $30,000 a year. It's an easy way to break even.

Date:

01/09/03

Time:

12:37 PM

Comments

How old ARE you?

Date:

01/09/03

Time:

12:48 PM

Comments

Who lays off workers to make more money? who moves production facilities to countries like Mexico putting American workers out on the street? how do you think the CEO's of America became millionaires? why do the corporate elite defraud their own employees, who do all of the work, of their hard-earned wages? ever heard of Enron? you can use that old-line about "who provides jobs" until you're blue in the face, however, the endless money trail of corporate greed is just too overpowering to cover-up. stop making up excuses for them.

Date:

01/09/03

Time:

04:40 PM

Comments

if you are making $500,000 to $1,000,000 and are not taking advantage of tax write-off's to save your company money you are foolish. if you are losing money due to your poor business sense and have made some bad investments, laying-off your employees is not going to save your butt. in fact, most companies today are laying off American workers and moving their businesses to 'econom ically-challenged' countries where they can take full advantage of the cheap labor. sure, these companies' CEO's make a fourtune for themselves while more Americans join the unemployment line.

Date:

01/09/03

Time:

04:45 PM

Comments

Like most unethical peolpe in business, you are pursuing materialism, not capitalism.

Date:

01/09/03

Time:

05:26 PM

Comments

We live today in a nation whose most essential public institutions have been turned inside out. The news media is no help in this matter, for this is an institution owned from top to bottom by the very corporations that are currently dictating policy. Consider the fact that NBC and MSNBC are owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors on earth. Understand that war in Iraq and elsewhere will do very good things for GE's bottom line. Realize the definition of the phrase, "Conflict of Interest." NBC is not the only outlet with divided loyalties. All of the mainstays of what used to be called journalism are in the same boat, rowing frantically towards whatever shores the CEO's point them towards. Truth does not even enter into the equation.

William Rivers Pitt

Date:

01/10/03

Time:

05:44 AM

Comments

you might also want to read back a little further in history to see how the Roman Empire fell: it spread it's armies too thin and began to fight multiple battles at the same time, it's senators and emperors became arrogant, corrupt, and ignored growing poverty and civil unrest, former allies abandoned and / or attacked them, trade was weakened, spending exceeded resouces, internal social-class conflicts intensified, thus untimately leading to a rapid decline of Roman civilzation. The United States is following in Rome's footsteps, and if it does not change it's ways, will suffer the same fate: dissolve.

Date:

01/10/03

Time:

05:57 AM

Comments

re: "How old ARE you?" - i still see you have no response or counter-argument to any subjects. not that i am surprised. nice try. try again?

Date:

01/10/03

Time:

06:28 AM

Comments

Are you aware that about 150,000 young people in their 20s, with young families, are suffering from Gulf War Illness so severe that they can't work, and need so much care that their spouses can't work, either, because of the need to care for the vet. Picture these young families with no source of income, with massive medical expenses, in a situation most people can't possibly imagine living in, and having on top of everything else to try to battle the government for the medical care they were promised. Bush has promised increased care for the troops, yet has stealthily cut veterans health care funding. He has also used the military pensions like he has used SS funds - to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

Why are the American media not reporting things like this? Why should Americans have to go outside their own country to learn the truth?

Date:

01/10/03

Time:

09:49 PM

Comments

RE: re: "How old ARE you?" - i still see you have no response or counter-argument to any subjects. not that i am surprised. nice try. try again?

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days - busy at work. You know I have to work hard, there are millions of democrats on welfare that depend on me. I'll try to catch up here this weekend.

Date:

01/11/03

Time:

01:21 AM

Comments

"...democrats on welfare..." something tells me that you ain't exactly wealthy by an stretch of the imagination...well, except your own. bet you are a member of the middle-America white 'wanna be rich' goup that thinks they have been cheated out of something that was never their's to begin with. probaly drive down the street wishing you were driving that BMW that 'Biff' is cruising in. keep dreaming that 'American dream', because that's all it is, and ever will be.

Date:

01/11/03

Time:

07:54 AM

Comments

You right. I'm not rich. I don't wish I was driving the BMW from down the street. I do hope, that after paying my 35% income tax, plus my social security and self employment taxes, to have enough money saved to send my children to college.

Funny thing, the Democrats think I'm rich because I'm one that will benefit from President Bush's tax plan

Date:

01/11/03

Time:

09:47 AM

Comments

"DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary, has suggested that Washington may present little or no evidence of Iraq’s quest for banned weapons even if President Bush decides to go to war. Mr Rumsfeld said that disclosing such details to the world or even to the United Nations Security Council could jeopardise any military mission by revealing to Baghdad what the United States knows."

Please read that last sentence again twice...out loud...and then, if you make some sense out it, please let me know!!!

Matilda

Date:

01/11/03

Time:

09:56 AM

Comments

"We're not made by God to mass kill one another ... and that's backed up by the Gospel. Lying and war are always associated. When you hear a war-maker try to defend his current war…if he moves his lips he's lying." Phil Berrigan

Date:

01/11/03

Time:

02:00 PM

Comments

Sure Rumsfeld's comment makes sense. It means that as soon as the liberal press knows what weapons of mass destruction the US is going to target (they will - it will be leaked to them), they will broadcast it to the Iraqi's who will then move it or more likely surround it with innocent women and children.

Not too hard to understand. Do you remember the first gulf war when the press was on the beaches first with lights on their cameras to cover it? The press doesn't use good sense.

There will be plenty of time to let the press know after we take our target and oust Saddam.

Date:

01/11/03

Time:

02:20 PM

Comments

"Why are the American media not reporting things like this? Why should Americans have to go outside their own country to learn the truth?"

Probably because it is propaganda from the far left and others with Anti-American interests and not true.

Date:

01/12/03

Time:

06:32 AM

Comments

To the person who wrote in defense of Rumsfeld; The proof which the Bush administration claims to have could certainly have been given to the chief of the inspection team without announcing it in what you call "the liberal press"! Let's be reasonable!! If you hire a top-notch private inspector to find the proof of a murder, you certainly wouldn't keep from him the location of the proof....or would you? Unless perhaps that proof would implicate you in the murder.

Date:

01/12/03

Time:

09:08 AM

Comments

"The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy."

Neville Chamberlain in a speech given in defense of the Munich Agreement, 1938.

Since some here like loony conspiracy theories, you can read one on collusion between Chamberlain and Hitler at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0853459991/104-8416167-4391913?vi=glance. It ranks right up there with Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor or Bush being behind 9/11, and the proof is just as convincing.

Date:

01/12/03

Time:

01:55 PM

Comments

We all have ideas of how to deal with the problems in Iraq. Since we can't all implement them, we choose leaders that we believe in and trust.

The American people elected President Bush as the person that best represents our ideas. We now need to let him and his qualified handpicked staff take care of the problems in the Iraq as they see fit.

Date:

01/12/03

Time:

02:47 PM

Comments

While reading Roman history is useful, you may want to refresh your grammar as well. You probably meant: ..it spread its armies too thin.., and not ..it's armies.. You are very right about the arrogance and corruption of elected officials, spending exceeding resouces, etc. The solution could start with limiting the size of government, but Democrats are pulling the other way. I note that no one came up with an coherent retort to the luxury tax issue. The author of the lone reply should be grateful there is no intelligence requirement for voting rights, for he would be disenfranchised.

Date:

01/13/03

Time:

05:29 AM

Comments

"There is a stunning disconnect between the terrible budget shortfalls facing states and localities and the priorities of federal tax-cutters. States face budget deficits of more than $60 billion for the coming year--and the ax is falling on mental health, education and children's healthcare. Libraries are being shuttered, tuitions increased and parks closed. Governors all political persuasions talk about the need for massive federal relief to the states in the form of block grants and Medicaid subsidies.

Yet the President and Congressional tax-cutters are marching ahead with a $670 billion tax cut that could include elimination of dividend taxes and an acceleration of 2001 tax rate cuts. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, 42 percent of the benefits of the dividend tax cut will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, whose are above $330,000. These proposals have more to do with rewarding campaign contributors and lobbying patrons than with economic stimulus."

Bill Gates

Date:

01/13/03

Time:

06:54 AM

Comments

Again, the people who pay the taxes SHOULD be the one who benefits from the tax cuts.

The problem with of the budget shortfalls stem from government waste. Can't cut back on wasteful programs because they may lose votes.

Cut my taxes, don't throw more good money after bad.

Date:

01/13/03

Time:

09:42 AM

Comments

When George W. Bush was running for president, he did not campaign as an enemy of the federal government. But he claimed that he would limit its growth and power....That was then. Now that Bush is running the federal government, its size doesn't bother him so much. Two years after taking office, Bush is presiding over the BIGGEST,MOST EXPENSIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY!" 01.12.03 www.bushwatch.com

Date:

01/13/03

Time:

04:49 PM

Comments

Bushwatch - now that's wouldn't be a liberal slanted web page would it? I'm sure very fair and balanced. As reliable as this one:

http://www.bsnn.net/headline%20news/KKK.htm

and for the person that posted the Bill gates quote: Bill Gates did not say that, but he did say the super rich did owe society and should pay estate taxes.

Date:

01/13/03

Time:

04:51 PM

Comments

Hmmm. Link wounldn't work Try this one:

www.bsnn.net/headline%20news/KKK.htm

Date:

01/14/03

Time:

03:25 PM

Comments

New Survey Documents Global Repression U.S. Human Rights Leadership Faulted

(Washington, D.C., January 14, 2003) — Global support for the war on terrorism is diminishing partly because the United States too often neglects human rights in its conduct of the war, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2003.

Terrorists violate basic human rights principles because they target civilians. But the United States undermines those principles when it overlooks human rights abuses by anti-terror allies such as Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and Afghan warlords, Human Rights Watch said in its annual survey of human rights around the world.

The 558-page Human Rights Watch World Report 2003 covers human rights in 58 countries in 2002. It identifies positive trends such as the formal end to wars in Angola, Sudan, and Sierra Leone, as well as peace talks in Sri Lanka. But negative developments included the outbreak of serious communal violence in Gujarat, India, and the continued killing of civilians in wars from Colombia to Chechnya, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meanwhile, governments continued highly repressive policies in Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Liberia and Vietnam.

“The United States is far from the world’s worst human rights abuser,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But Washington has so much power today that when it flouts human rights standards, it damages the human rights cause worldwide.”

Human Rights Watch said the Bush administration seemed to recognize the connections between repression and terrorism in its National Security Strategy, and had taken some steps to promote human rights in countries directly involved in the struggle against terrorism, such as Egypt and Uzbekistan. The United States has also tried to advance human rights in places where the war was not implicated, including Burma, Belarus and Zimbabwe. Yet the U.S. government’s engagement on human rights has been compromised by its unwillingness to confront a number of crucial partners, and its refusal to be bound by standards it preaches to others.

“To fight terrorism, you need the support of people in countries where the terrorists live,” said Roth. “Cozying up to oppressive governments is hardly a way to build those alliances.”

For example, the United States is generating popular resentment in Pakistan by uncritically backing General Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup.

“He’s still tight with us on the war against terror, and that’s what I appreciate,” U.S. President George Bush said about Musharraf, who last year pushed through constitutional amendments to extend his presidential term by five years and recently strengthened a draconian anti-terror decree.

In China, the Bush administration has downplayed the repression of Muslims in the northwest Xinjiang province, which the Chinese government justifies as an anti-terrorist measure. Saudi Arabia, with its highly repressive government, is an important regional player and the U.S. government rarely challenges it on human rights.

The Bush administration is seeking to reinvigorate ties to the Indonesian military, despite the lack of accountability for its serious human rights abuses and the military’s support for militia groups that foster instability. The United States has also been reluctant to expand the international peacekeeping forces that could help bring stability to Afghanistan, relying instead on abusive warlords who are inhibiting the human rights progress made possible by the fall of the Taliban.

In addition, Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorist suspects. It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of “enemy combatant” to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil. The Bush administration has also abused immigration laws to deny criminal suspects their rights.

In 2002, the U.S. government actively tried to undermine important human rights initiatives such as the International Criminal Court, a new international inspection regime to prevent torture, and a United Nations resolution that the war on terrorism should be fought in a manner consistent with human rights.

The war against terror has provided an excuse for other Western countries to slacken their support for human rights. European leaders virtually abandoned efforts to pressure Russia, an anti-terror ally, to end its abusive conduct of the war in Chechnya.

Human Rights Watch does not take a position on the possible war in Iraq, and believes that its most important contribution to reducing the civilian suffering that war entails is to monitor and promote the compliance by all warring parties with international humanitarian law.

Roth noted that the more U.S. government officials cite Saddam Hussein’s human rights record as one reason to topple him, the greater their obligation to minimize the potentially serious human rights consequences of any war in Iraq. The United States should take all feasible measures to protect Iraqi civilians from acts of revenge by Saddam Hussein, including the possible use of weapons of mass destruction. At minimum, it should make clear that anyone who directs or commits atrocities will be prosecuted, not just a handful of senior Iraqi officials.

The United States should ensure that its local allies in any Iraq war do not engage in revenge killings or reprisals against civilians. And the Bush administration should also put pressure on Iraq’s neighbors, such as Turkey, Jordan and Iran, to keep their borders open to refugees.

Human Rights Watch is an international monitoring group based in New York, with offices around the world. It does not accept funding from any government.

To read the report, please see: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3.

Date:

01/14/03

Time:

10:53 PM

Comments

More 2 faced liberals:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01132003/gossip/pagesix.htm

Date:

01/15/03

Time:

06:55 AM

Comments

Dennis Prager

January 15, 2003

Why the Arab world hates America

Why is America hated in the Arab world?

According to leftists and to Arab and Islamic spokesmen, the reasons are: American support for non-democratic regimes in the Arab world -- such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- and because America supports Israel.

Before positing what I believe to be the reasons, let's answer these two arguments.

The argument that America is hated by Arabs because it supports non-democratic regimes in the Arab world would be regarded as hilarious were it not believed by so many gullible people in the West.

The argument presupposes that what the Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere) who hate America want are open and free societies. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Is there any movement for pluralism, openness and democracy among those who hate America? Of course not. The Arab governments most opposed to America and which America therefore least influences -- Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya -- have less freedom than the corrupt Arab regimes that America does support. As corrupt and repressive as the Egyptian government is, Egypt is free compared to the aforementioned countries.

And if the United States ceased to pour billions of dollars a year into Egypt and the Mubarak dictatorship then fell, what would supplant it? Democracy? Openness? Pluralism? Freedom of speech?

We all know the answer. In every Arab country, a corrupt regime supported by America would be supplanted by a Taliban-type Islamic/fascist regime.

So let's call this argument what it is -- a lie. Overwhelmingly, the Arabs who hate us don't want a free and open society; they want an Islamic totalitarian one. American influence in the Arab world prevents our haters there from imposing their vicious expression of Islam, not from establishing Jeffersonian democracy.

As for the second argument, yes, our support for Israel's security further inflames the hatred of those Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere) who hate us. But why do they hate Israel? Why are they so obsessed with a tiny state in a part of the Arab and Islamic world that they utterly ignored until Jews made a civilization there?

Because America's and Israel's haters are ethnic and religious haters on a magnitude not seen since the Nazis. They loathe everything Israel (and its American supporter) represents -- freedom, democracy, openness, individual autonomy, freedom of religion, pluralism, women's equality and sexual freedom. They want Israel dead. Gone. Exterminated. They say so publicly, and they say so in polls. Yet, the educated fools and the Israel- and America-haters of the West ignore all this and blame Israel for trying to exist and America for enabling it to do so.

If America abandoned Israel, our Arab and Muslim haters would rejoice, but they would surely not stop hating us. Not one of them. They would only conclude that their terror worked, and that America will give in when the threats are great enough. One proof? Most Muslims living in Europe, which has abandoned Israel, continue to loathe Europe. Europe's abandonment of Israel has only convinced them -- for good reason -- that Europe has lost its moral fiber and is ripe for an Islamic takeover.

Arab and other Muslims who hate America do so:

Because America alone (and the little America in the Middle East, Israel) prevents the expansion of Islamic rule.

Because expansionist totalitarian movements, whether Soviet communism or radical Islam, always hate free societies, and America is the strongest free society.

Because America is not only strong, it is religious (as opposed to Europe, which is weak and irreligious).

Because America is not only Christian; it is Judeo-Christian, the two religions the Islamists need to overcome to expand globally.

The greatest problem confronting America is not that people who loathe freedom loathe us. Indeed, it is to America's enduring credit that it is hated by Islamists. Our great problem is that so many in our country do not understand that those who loathe liberty loathe America. For this reason, the battle for America's future is at home more than it is in Iraq or Afghanistan or in al Qaeda's caves.

We talk a great deal about winning Arabs' and Muslims' minds and hearts. Yet, we have yet to win all Americans' minds and hearts. For confirmation, just visit your local university

Date:

01/15/03

Time:

07:31 AM

Comments

Here's an interesting article for you. It explains why Class Warfare won't work in America. HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/12BROO.html">Click here: The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest </A> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/12BROO.html

Date:

01/15/03

Time:

01:36 PM

Comments

Bush declares that he values the sanctity of human life. The only life he respects is pre-born. Once the kid hits the cold air of the world, Bush and his minions only value him if he's born to a wealthy family. All the rest can starve, freeze, and go uneducated, until they hit the prisons, where Bush intends to house the majority of the "not like us" crowd, while executing as many as possible.

Well, what can we expect from the guy who used to blow up frogs with firecrackers to watch their guts splatter, and who used to chase his brothers around the house shooting at them with a loaded BB gun (that story was reported by Jeb Bush). M.

Date:

01/17/03

Time:

04:28 PM

Comments

"The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government," the Republican Theodore Roosevelt declared in 1906. "It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a single night in security."

Without government to enforce contracts, protect life and property, and mitigate social inequities, the very wealthy would live in constant fear of being plundered. Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is NOT in favor of the tax rebate!!!

Date:

01/17/03

Time:

07:26 PM

Comments

Because he is the richest man in the world.

Date:

01/18/03

Time:

11:07 PM

Comments

Anyone here find it ironic that President Bush condemned using race as a factor in choosing college admissions and because of that is called a racist?

Date:

01/19/03

Time:

02:22 PM

Comments

Yes he said that someone's race shouldn't give them an advantage over someone of another race.

Just like MLK said in this quote from his "I have a dream" speech, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Now that Bush has also said you shouldn't give someone preference because of race, let's here the Liberals say that President Bush wasn't right in what he said about the Michigan admissions selection criteria.

Should race be taken off applications for schools and jobs?

Date:

01/19/03

Time:

03:49 PM

Comments

HOWARD DEAN IS THE JOHN DOE CANDIDATE "Democrats are, in the words of New Yorker editor David Remnick, "cowed, confused, incoherent," but not Dean. He speaks out boldly against the war in Iraq -- his senatorial rivals all voted for it, a fact that Dean stresses....The country needs health insurance, says the doctor, yet Congress is arguing about the wrong thing, the patients' bill of rights, which would not make the slightest difference because "it would not bring health insurance to a single American." Using no notes, Dean strode smartly through the issues.

On education, he derides Bush's education bill as "no school left standing" because it is all mandate and no money. On the war, the president "has not made the case for a clear and present danger in Iraq" and should be telling us instead his postwar notions of occupation in Afghanistan and the nation-building he once rejected. "We need an energy policy," he told the attentive crowd. 'We need to discuss this stuff.'" 01.19.03 mc grory | related stories

Date:

01/20/03

Time:

07:25 AM

Comments

Who will benefit from the proposed war??? The defense contractors and the oil conglomerates. American lives will be endangered. Arab lives will be grist for more and more regime change. The already suffering poor, the medically needy children and orphans, the starving; all will be swept aside in the march of conquest and imperial domination. And for what? A substance made from the fossils of extinct life forms, which fuel the engines of greed, in a world choking on its own fumes.

War is now a game of monopoly, played on a lethal field, with no winners, and only the dead to keep score.

John Cory | The Games of War http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012003A.cory.games.htm

Date:

01/20/03

Time:

08:19 PM

Comments

Who will benefit from the proposed war???

American lives will be saved. Arab lives will be changed for the better. The suffering poor, the medically needy children and orphans, the starving; all will be given the chance to experience democracy and receive aid from the greatest nation on earth.

Date:

01/21/03

Time:

11:06 AM

Comments

The American economy continued to hemorrhage last month, and at an accelerating pace. President Bush's belated "stimulus" plan -- more tax cuts for that thin layer of multimillionaires at the peak of our economic pyramid -- misses the point entirely.

The president's economics team has the cart before the horse. Falling corporate profits aren't causing the bad economy. It's the bad economy that has brought down corporate profits.

It isn't so much the bad stock market that causes unemployment. It's rising joblessness that continues to stifle the stock market.

Jim Wright

Date:

01/22/03

Time:

03:33 AM

Comments

Link to a post that is WAY too long for a message board (15 pages single spaced in a Word Document)!

Click here

Please try to restrain yourselves, people.

Thanks

Date:

01/22/03

Time:

03:37 AM

Comments

Republicans to Bu$h -We Want Our Money Back

http://www.abuzz.com/interaction/s.312158/discussion/e/0.38/

A Republican Dissent on Iraq - Wall Street Journal full page ad

Date:

01/22/03

Time:

06:58 AM

Comments

Jim Wright, If a communist tried it successfully, would you believe that tax cuts can generate more income for the government? Now please go read about Russia, who, under Vladimir Putin, CUT TAXES in 1991 to a flat 13%. Since then tax revenues have surged 28% and their economy has grown by 5%. If a former KGB head can come to reason, why is it so hard for Democrats to understand simple economic facts?

Would you be the one who can explain why the Luxury Tax brought in less revenue than anticipated and cost 25000 average workers their jobs?

Date:

01/22/03

Time:

07:37 AM

Comments

Today, Senator Edward Kennedy gave a ROUSING, comprehensive speech - the Democratic policy address - about all the issues of the day, not pulling any punches. He was WONDERFUL! The streaming video is avaiable below:

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ndrive/e012103_kennedy.rm

Date:

01/22/03

Time:

10:39 AM

Comments

Dear readers,

Can you believe this is happening in America? "Bookstores and libraries have been complicit for some time now in giving the FBI information about customers' and clients' reading habits. Bookstore employees and librarians may not divulge to patrons that they are being surveilled; this would subject employees or librarians to criminal prosecution."

I urge you to read the entire article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/shivani01182003.html January 18 / 19, 2003

Date:

01/23/03

Time:

04:58 AM

Comments

do you mean to tell me that the FBI knows about my visits to 'adult entertainment' sites? oh well, at least they'll know i'm a breast man!

Date:

01/23/03

Time:

12:45 PM

Comments

During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation,” says one Pentagon officer. “We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don’t have it now.”

Read full article: buzzflash@buzzflash.com

Date:

01/23/03

Time:

06:17 PM

Comments

Ted Kennedy was wonderful. It is always great to hear a philandering alcoholic millionaire speak on behalf of the little people.

Date:

01/23/03

Time:

09:01 PM

Comments

In fact, Putin cut taxes in 2001, not 1991. Other countries, over the howls of special interests, have lowered taxes and intituted a flat tax succesfully as well: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. All, including Russia, were rewarded with job creation and rapid growth.

Date:

01/24/03

Time:

06:15 PM

Comments

BUSH'S CREDIBILITY APPEARS SHOT IN ENGLAND ""A Labour MP, described by Andrew Rawnsley, chief political commentator for The Observer, as "impeccably loyal and Atlanticist," admits, "I've no hang-ups about joining the United States in military action. It's following that cowboy which I find so hard to stomach." Rawnsley also quotes a former Conservative cabinet minister who says he regards George Bush as "a child running around with a grenade with the pin pulled out." Right now, the lack of confidence Bush inspires in our allies is the world's single best hope for peace." " 01.24.03 alterman | related stories

Date:

01/25/03

Time:

09:12 AM

Comments

The numbers speak for themselves:

$62 Million and more spent by the GOP investigating Clinton's genitalia;

$3 Million spent by the GOP investigating 9-11.

While it's deplorable that an event of such magnitude as 9-11 gets such limited funding, we have to hand it to the GOP for spending money on the stuff they care about.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Date:

01/25/03

Time:

10:09 AM

Comments

“This is the worst president ever,” she said. “He is the worst president in all of American history.” Leading journalist, Helen Thomas, speaking of Bush.

Date:

01/25/03

Time:

10:29 AM

Comments

(*Editors Note | The implications of the thought process delineated below should give everyone pause. When Rumsfeld tells his generals to get in line for war or find another job, that is serious. When Bush lets it be known within his administration that disagreement with his policies is tantamount to treason, that is serious. Mr. Bush appears to be ensconced in an echo chamber that allows only voices of approval and total support to be heard. France, Germany, Russia and China will get on board, the echoes say. The generals are behind us, the echoes say. Treason is an appropriate charge to level against dissenters, the echoes say. This would not be the first time in history that a leader is led to war by a cavalcade of yes-men. If this situation goes awry, however, it may be the last time. - wrp) Truthout

Date:

01/25/03

Time:

11:02 AM

Comments

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." --George Bush, cited in June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter

Date:

01/26/03

Time:

08:30 AM

Comments

re:"Bookstores and libraries have been complicit for some time now in giving the FBI information about customers' and clients' reading habits"

Since we seem to share a tendency for paranoia, I am sure you now understand why some of us are reluctant to have our firearms registered with the federal government. Let's try to keep every ammendment of the bill of rights intact.

Date:

01/26/03

Time:

07:48 PM

Comments

''Iraq is not the problem. Enron is!'' By then, the waiting crowd had already overstuffed Old Snell Hall on the campus of Clarkson University in northern New York. With all 500 seats filled, 100 people wedged themselves onto spare patches of the peeling linoleum floor. Most of the crowd wanted to hear the case against war, and they were exuberant to be hearing it from Scott Ritter, the onetime United Nations arms inspector and now America's most unlikely peacenik. Ritter did not disappoint them, talking powerfully without notes for nearly an hour and drawing the kind of prolonged ovation he has come to expect and relish. President Bush is force-feeding Americans ''a whole bunch of oversimplified horse manure,'' he told them boldly. ''None of what you are being told remotely resembles the truth. Facts do matter, and it is time that you, the American people, start demanding the facts.''

Oh, by the way, this is the same Scott Ritter who allegedly arranged to meet with someone he thought was a 16-year-old girl he'd met in an Internet chat room. The person was actually an undercover police officer.

Date:

01/27/03

Time:

05:16 AM

Comments

“The five permanent members of the Security Council produce and sell something like 85 percent of the military weaponry in the world today. And they're the very countries that supposedly are in charge of international peace and security. That's quite a ludicrous situation we've got here.”

Dennis Halliday

Date:

01/27/03

Time:

09:10 AM

Comments

"The American people don't want this war, our global allies don't want this war, so why is President Bush stampeding down the warpath, and not working toward a real solution to disarm Saddam?", Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a speech yesterday at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In Washington, Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, told reporters: "The administration has put this country on a bull-headed rush to war, seemingly without regard for the implications such unilateral action will have on America's relationship with other nations."

Date:

01/27/03

Time:

03:56 PM

Comments

"Republicans seem to think there is an inspiring quality in giving more money to the top one percent. When I read this, I am reminded of the 'Horse and Sparrow' theory of economics--that if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." - James K. Galbraith

Date:

01/27/03

Time:

07:24 PM

Comments

They found warheads that are meant to be used for biological weapons and proof that they are building nuclear weapons:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/19/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml

What will it take for liberals to say it's time to attack and rid the world of Sadaam? An attack by him on a liberal stronghold like San Francisco or Hollywood?(Wouldn't be all bad)

Maybe the liberals just want Bush to pull out so that when he does attack, they can point the finger at him and the Republicans and use it to defeat tem in future elections. Go Bush!!!

Date:

01/27/03

Time:

09:41 PM

Comments

Cute Galbraith quote. However, it would be more appropriate to put it in a proper perspective: After the horse has worked all year growing the oats, how much should she be allowed to retain for herself?

Please consider this quote from a great man:

"If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend a penny more than can be justified on grounds of national need, and spent with maximum efficiency. . . . The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. . . . It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. This country's own experience with tax reductions has borne this out, and the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget -- and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."

Can you name him?

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

07:09 AM

Comments

People are starting to catch on. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 53 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy. 61 percent think Bush's latest tax scheme is just a giveaway to the wealthy. And, by more than 2 to 1, Americans would rather see the money for Bush's tax scheme go to education, health care, and Social Security.

Progressive majority

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

07:19 AM

Comments

“It’s time for you to decide: Should public policy be bought and sold like commodities in the stock market? Should a tiny elite, insulated from the everyday needs of average Americans, be able to buy politicians and obtain special treatment? Or should we offer candidates who refuse special-interest donations a source of "clean" public money?”

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

07:31 AM

Comments

Saddam Hussein isn't a nice man.

But he's no worse now than during the Reagan era, when current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a special emissary to Baghdad, currying favor with the Iraqi leadership in furtherance of U.S. objectives against our nemesis of the moment, Iran.

That double standard of opportunistic convenience has long been a morally repugnant feature of our foreign policy.

Osama bin Laden was formerly a valuable American asset, whom we helped train and arm, as he and his fellow Mujahideen battled the Soviets in Afghanistan.

The list of dreadful strongmen who've been our "friends" is shamefully long: Batista, Samoza, Rhee, the Shah Pahlavi, Marcos, Diem, Thieu, Ky, Papadopolous, Suharto, Pinochet...just to name a few, among dozens over the decades. Their authoritarian ways, and barbarism, never upset Washington's sensibilities, as long as they were compliantly on America's side.

So, Bush's case against Saddam -- totally without valid basis in the outlandish claim that sanction-devastated, defeated Iraq poses an imminent threat to the world's most militarily powerful nation -- is also devoid of any essential credibility from the ballyhooed "bad guy" standpoint.

Dennis Rahkonen

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

08:34 AM

Comments

Right Dennis,

We should just wait for him to use weapons of mass destruction on someone, maybe in the USA. Then we can ask the UN if its ok to attack him.

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

09:55 AM

Comments

Did I get this right?

So, then, it's because Saddam is somewhat inefficient in killing the Iraqi people, that we're going to go in and show him how killing Iraqis is really done. And then, when he leaves the realm, the survivors will all love us. And everyone in the region will feel closer to us, thus stopping Al-Qaeda. It's so obvious, once you just let yourself believe... Buzzflash

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

11:46 AM

Comments

"George W Bush is in trouble. This is not wishful thinking by Europeans who cannot abide a man they see as a trigger-happy, unilateralist half-wit. It is an assessment of the 43rd President's standing at home, on the day he delivers what is surely one of the most important State of the Union messages in modern times." 01.28.03

Rupert Cornwell

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

02:23 PM

Comments

The DOD is now planning to rain 800 Cruise missles down on Baghdad. This is not a war. This is a massacre, equivalent to what happened to New York on September 11......only much, much, much worse. It is a slaughter that American citizens and their protectors in the armed forces should be ashamed to be associated with.

Jane Stillwater

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

02:54 PM

Comments

Let's see, they are attempting to build a nuclear device, they have not accounted for 6500 missiles in inspections or 65 tons of materials to make nerve gas, they attemptted in the last year to import radioactive material used only to make nuclear weapons and they have violated the UN Sanctions 77 times.

If not now, when? What would it take?

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

03:23 PM

Comments

"How can you call George Bush a mass murderer?" a recent email asked. "In order for him to be classified as a mass murderer, he would have to kill all those people you say he's killed with his own hands."

Let us begin by using the logic of government, in particular the government of California when it prosecuted Charles Manson over thirty years ago. Manson did not personally murder Sharon Tate, et al, he ordered his crazed minions to do it. In fact, when the murders occurred, Manson wasn't even at the scene. Yet he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (a sentence that was never carried out after California repealed in the death penalty in the early 70s).

If we use the above criteria, Bush is a mass murderer.

But then presidents are never prosecuted for murder, let alone convicted. Bush ordered the US military to bomb Afghanistan -- an act resulting in approximately five thousand murders -- supposedly to get bin Laden and his cronies who are believed to have perpetuated the 911 atrocities. Yet bin Laden was not killed or were any of his high-ranking followers. The people who died were mostly peasants and lowly Taliban. Exactly zero percent, far as we know, of these people were responsible for 911.

I will go one better.

Bush didn't kill bin Laden because the Saudi is a CIA asset. Bin Laden was the "Pearl Harbor" the neocons have talked about now for years, well before Bush was elected (excuse me, appointed) to the presidency.

It's common knowledge that bin Laden was funded by the CIA to fight the Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan. Andrew Evered Allen, a reclusive millionaire and CIA insider, admitted as much in court documents. He also admitted the CIA is attempting to overthrow the government of Myanmar, or Burma.

Overthrowing governments and killing dissidents is what the CIA does.

Mark Zapezauer has written extensively on CIA operations in Afghanistan under the Reagan regime. Reagan and the CIA spent between five and six billion dollars to bankroll and equip the drug trafficking Afghan mujihadeen, the largest and most expensive operation ever conducted by the CIA. As Ahmed Rashid has detailed, between 1982 and 1992 some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries trained and fought with the Afghan mujihadeen. Reagan's CIA director, William Casey, orchestrated the recruitment and arming of these vicious anti-Soviet warriors.

One of these warriors was a young Saudi student, Osama bin Laden.

It's not like the CIA to let an asset like that wither on the vine, especially considering the well-documented connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden going back 20 or more years. (Read Michel Chossudovsky's "Who Is Osama Bin Laden?")

As Michael C. Ruppert points out, "Bin Laden's role has not just been as a practitioner of terrorist acts but as a trainer and supplier of terrorist organizations around the world. Included in bin Laden's coterie are terrorist groups linked to the Balkans, Albania, the KLA (a U.S. ally), and rebel groups leading the insurrection against Russia in Chechnya."

In other words, the CIA used the bin Laden network (the media calls it "al-Qaeda," although no such organization really exists) on several occasions. The CIA (and the Bush neocons) will use it again in the future. It's too valuable to eradicate.

Bush and the neocon chicken hawks tapped into this CIA-cultivated network well before 911. The neo-fascist PNAC (Project for the New American Century) organization (a "think tank" founded by the warmongers Robert Kagan and William Kristol) essentially sketched out the Bush worldview and plan of attack for global dominance, which naturally includes plenty of mass murder (no problem for the butcher of Texas, who oversaw the execution of 152 humans while governor).

As Australia's Sunday Herald reported last September, the Bush neocons-in-waiting (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dubya's little bother Jeb, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby) had PNAC contrive a "blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence... and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests," an ambitious conspiracy to be carried out by "the cavalry on the new American frontier."

In other words, a diagram for mass murder on a global scale.

Remember: "international security order" is code for making sure US-backed brutal dictators rule over "strategic" places all over the world (places with a lot of valuable natural resources such as oil, diamonds, rainforests, minerals, agriculturally viable land, etc.); "international security order" translates into more torture, genocide, environmental degradation, and looting of water resources, social programs, schools, hospitals, etc., by banks and transnational corporations.

It's US foreign policy on steroids. It's the selfish and anti-social (or sociopathic) rich minority cannibalizing the vast majority of humanity for private gain. It's criminal -- and now it will include murder like we have not witnessed since WWII.

After PNAC drafted up this connivance, Bush had his little brother fix the election in Florida and the neo-fascist majority of the Supreme Court made sure it stuck. Computer voting machines owned by rich Republicans (i.e., Election Systems & Software and the McCarthy Group) will make sure it happens again. It essentially matters not if you vote, sit out elections, or write angry letters to your rich lawyer or business congress person.

All Bush needed to get the ball rolling was have the CIA engineer "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor," an "opportunity of ages," as PNAC described it.

Deliverance came gift wrapped on September 11, 2001.

Unlike Clinton, who vacillated somewhat on the prospect of killing a lot of people in one fell swoop (he preferred to kill small numbers over a long period of time), Bush has no problem ordering the mass murder of 500,000 or more humans in one blitzkrieg-like "operation" conducted by "the cavalry on the new American frontier."

In the weeks ahead, Bush will, like Hitler and Stalin before him, order the unconscionable murder of untold thousands of innocent humans in the name of the PNAC-envisioned imperium.

As is now painfully obvious, the American citizenry can do almost nothing to stop the impending blood bath about to unfold in Iraq (and maybe Saudi Arabia). Bush, the vicious frat boy who once tortured small animals, will not be dissuaded, he will not listen to the American people because they did not elect him and he does not represent them.

Bush was "elected" by the Enron and Lockheed Martin class of rich people who thrive on fraud, deception, murder, and theft. Bush represents transnational corporations, the kind run by criminals such as Dick Cheney and Ken Lay.

So determined to kill is the unelected president of the United States, he is now considering using nukes in Iraq if Saddam Hussein resists invasion with biological or chemical weapons. Bush will soon be a war criminal of immense, possibly so far unattained magnitude.

We can only hope there's enough left after this madman is finished (enough of a civilization and legal system, that is, left intact) so we can bring him and the other life-negating neocons and miscellaneous warmongers up on charges of crimes against humanity.

It may make the Nuremberg war crimes trials look like kindergarten.

Kurt Nimmo

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

04:19 PM

Comments

That's good Kirk. Now answer the question that was posed. If not now, When?

Date:

01/28/03

Time:

09:32 PM

Comments

President Bush was great tonight.

Proposing developing cleaner cars, preserving forests, reducing factory emmissions, providing health care for the poor and elderly, stopping the killing of children during partial birth abortions, stopping frivolous medical lawsuits decreasing the amount of money the government takes in taxes and requiring the government to spend our tax money responsibly.

How can liberals argue with that? Why were Hillary and her crew not standing and clapping in agreement with the rest? Aren't the liberal for all those thing's I've listed?

Steve

Date:

01/29/03

Time:

05:03 AM

Comments

Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the prope