Message board comments 
from April 20 through April 30, 2003

Date:

04/20/03

Time:

03:15 PM

Comments

From Sweden, a country renowned for its concern for the environment and advanced approach to waste, more liberal rants said wrong:

In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling. "For years recycling has been held up as the best way to deal with waste. It's time that myth was exploded."

Story at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wrecyc02.xml

Don't worry, you can still pray for the economy to collapse. But of course you can't do that, that's against liberal view of separation of Church and State.

Date:

04/20/03

Time:

07:30 PM

Comments

For you poor bastards who have only "terrible looting" to hang your shameful hats on -- this from the 4/17 WSJ

Iraqis Say Museum Looting Wasn't as Bad as Feared

By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Last week's looting of the Iraq National Museum, which saw numerous items disappear from a vast collection spanning eight millennia of Mesopotamian history, has provoked world-wide outcry -- and criticism of the U.S. military for its failure to protect Iraq's priceless cultural heritage.

But, thanks to Iraqi preparations before the war, it seems the worst has been avoided. Donny George, the director-general of restoration at the Iraqi Antiquities Department, Wednesday said his staff had preserved the museum's most important treasures, including the kings' graves of Ur and the Assyrian bulls. These objects were hidden in vaults that haven't been violated by looters.

"Most of the things were removed. We knew a war was coming, so it was our duty to protect everything," Mr. George said. "We thought there would be some sort of bombing at the museum. We never thought it could be looted."

In a city where frequent shooting occurs day and night and the telephones don't work, reliable information is often hard to obtain. Earlier this week, some museum workers reached foreign journalists to complain about an orgy of looting in the museum, saying that little of the collection remains. As secrecy long enveloped the museum -- where part of the collection had been siphoned off by Saddam Hussein's family and sold abroad -- it isn't clear whether these museum workers knew about the prewar preparations to hide the most-valuable artifacts.

A U.S. tank takes up position at the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad Wednesday, after looters last week walked off with antiquities or smashed what they couldn't steal.

Along with the destruction of ancient manuscripts at the Iraq National Library and other acts of vandalism throughout the city, the museum's looting has prompted a wave of anti-American anger. A belief often voiced in the streets of Baghdad holds that U.S. soldiers themselves stole the most-precious objects in the collection and used the looters to cover up the crime. Mr. George, standing side by side with the American commander in the area, Lt. Col. Eric Schwartz of the U.S. Army Third Infantry Division's Task Force 1-64, dispelled this view. But he said many valuable items are still missing.

Among the antiquities unaccounted for so far, Mr. George said, are the sacral vase of Warqa, from Sumerian times, and the bronze statue of Basitqi, from the Accadian civilization.

The museum compound was occupied Wednesday by a company-size tank unit, and a notice by the gate says the site is protected by the U.S. military. The museum floor is littered with debris, and access inside is forbidden because Iraqi specialists are working to catalogue what remains and to try to restore some of the items, Lt. Col. Schwartz said.

"There was a tremendous amount of looting just for destruction purposes -- and there were artifacts that were not destroyed at all," he said. "It was not as bad as I thought it would be."

Lt. Col. Schwartz, whose functions also include feeding the lions in the abandoned Baghdad Zoo next door, said he couldn't move into the museum compound and protect it from looters last week because his soldiers were taking fire from the building -- and were determined not to respond. There is an Iraqi army trench in the museum's front lawn, and Lt. Col. Schwartz said his troops found many Iraqi army uniforms inside. "If there is any dirty trick in the book," he said, "they sure used it."

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com5

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105053292455773900,00.html

Date:

04/21/03

Time:

07:11 AM

Comments

"As for the WMD, they have not been found, either by the UN inspectors, or by us. So Bush is now claiming they have been transferred to Syria. But we all know that that whole area has been under satellite surveillance for years. Satellite photos can tell if a coin is heads or tails. Surely they could see the movement of WMDs. How dumb does this administration and its subservient media think we are???

Good point. The initial goal was to find and destroy the WMDs. This morphed into the liberation of the Iraqi people. I personally have no problem with either, but that is only opinion. Does anyone else remember how the charges against a recent former president were perjury and obstruction of justice, but somehow morphed into "just about sex".

Was the Senate Whitewater Committee as incompetent as the weapons inspectors? Saddam has had years to hide WMD while we tried the multilateral approach. Hans Blix would probably have trouble finding evidence of the recent conflict in Iraq. How long did it take for Hillary to find the Rose law firm records? They were in her residence, and were only inadvertently found on her desk by Carolyn Huber. Oh yeah, that was only a witch hunt. Right! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html (I hope PBS does not qualify as a right wing outlet)

Peter Newark

As for the billing records from the Rose Law Finn , they have not been found, either by the Federal investigators, or by us. So Hillary is now claiming they have been transferred to Syria. But we all know that that whole area has been under federal subpoenas for years. Senate investigators can tell if a coin is heads or tails. Surely they could determine if someone is hiding evidence. How dumb does this administration and its subservient media think we are???

Date:

04/21/03

Time:

07:43 AM

Comments

An Apology

IN THE past three weeks, we at the BBC may have inadvertently given the impression through all our outlets that the Allied incursion into Iraq was a reckless political act which was militarily ill-conceived in every respect, unsupported by the Iraqi people, who regarded it as a ruthless invasion of their sacred homeland, and which was certain to end in total disaster. News headlines such as “Coalition Bogged Down In New Vietnam”, “Baghdad Will Be Worse Than Stalingrad”, “Blundering Coalition Forces On Brink Of Humiliating Defeat By Saddam’s Super-Elite Special Republican Guard” may have given the impression that we believed in some way that the war was not going quite as well as planned. In the light of recent events, we now accept – albeit with a very bad grace – that the coalition forces seem for the time being to have got away with it, and that large numbers of Iraqis, though clearly paid by the CIA to do so, may have appeared to be not entirely displeased at the downfall of a regime which, whatever its faults, did at least for 30 years guarantee the stability of a potentially explosive mix of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, who will now undoubtedly plunge the whole region into a state of chaos which will threaten the peace of the world. Whilst apologising for any confusion to which our reports may have given rise (and allowing for the fact that they could be broadcast only under monitoring restrictions imposed by the Iraqi authorities), we now realise that the only hope for future peace is for the hated Bush/Blair imperialist aggressors to be replaced at once by a French-led UN force of Russian troops of the type who were so successful in bringing peace to the Muslims of Groszny.

© The BBC (and Channel Four)

Date:

04/21/03

Time:

02:47 PM

Comments

Don't worry, the liberals will be able to start scaring senior citizens about how Bush will take all their money away. Doesn't matter that they said that last year and he hasn't so far.

Date:

04/21/03

Time:

06:26 PM

Comments

Yeah, remember their "sky is falling" cry during the last elections when they said if we had a Republican Congress and President there would be more seniors and poor children having food ripped from their mouths and clothes taken off their back?

That (like their predictions in Iraq) have not come to pass.

Peter

Date:

04/21/03

Time:

08:02 PM

Comments

Don't be so hard on the liberals on this page. They are probably good folk. Just misguided. It must be hard to find out they have been wrong about everything for so long.

Maybe this will cheer them up: The Dow went down 8.8 points today.

Date:

04/21/03

Time:

09:23 PM

Comments

This is an interesting problem for the liberals. In California, one of our most liberal states, Peterson is being charged (rightly so) with double homicide for the murder of his wife and unborn child.

This seems to negate their arguments for late term abortions. Is the fetus a human or not?

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

08:15 AM

Comments

What does it mean to liberate and democratize a country when no one asked you to do it and when, in the process, you occupy it militarily while failing to preserve law and order? What a travesty of strategic planning when you assume 'natives' will welcome your presence after you've bombed and quarantined them for 13 years.

This is one paragraph from an excellent article appearing in the UK Observer. You can read the entire article on our Update Page. It's called "Give us Back our Democracy. Matilda

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

11:03 AM

Comments

Matilda,

Don't you ever look at yourself in a mirror? How can you write such nonsense as, "What does it mean to liberate and democratize a country when no one asked you to do it and when, in the process, you occupy it militarily while failing to preserve law and order?"

Are you blind to the horrors of Sadaam Hussein? Does the torture and murder of tens of thousands of innocents pass beneath your nose without comment? No one asked you to do it? No doubt you fondly remember the reign of little Joe Stalin. Now there was a man who (like Sadaam) understood preserving law and order!

Fortunately, the good people of Iraq are much more appreciative of liberation than you.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

11:48 AM

Comments

For two centuries, nations have attempted to conquer the Mideast for their own nefarious purposes, while posing as liberators. "Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion. Do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights!" Napoleon promised. "[O]ur armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," the British commander F.S. Maude wrote in 1917. "Again and again, Westerners have moved into the Mideast with confidence that they can impose freedom and modernity through military force," the Wall Street Journal recently reported. "Along the way they have miscalculated support for their invasions, both internationally and in the lands they occupy. They have anointed cooperative minorities to help rule resentful majorities. They have been mired in occupations that last long after local support has vanished. They have met with bloody uprisings and put them down with brute force."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB104802384328857700,00.html

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

12:46 PM

Comments

Hey, All,

I hope that I'm not oversimplifying things here.

Does anyone else here remember Colin Powell making a speech in front of the UN saying that we *know* that there are WMDs in Iraq and that we just can't tell you right where they are because we'd be giving up some of our intelligence methods and sources?

Now we are in Iraq. The resistence is effectively over from their military. For good or bad they are defeated and our military is free to roam and not prevent looting as they see fit.

So, I'm confused on this point: why don't we uncover the WMDs that Mr Powell said we know they have? Am I missing something here? Didn't we *know* where they are? So where are they?

Rich

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

02:16 PM

Comments

Dear Rich,

Actually, I remember Powell's presentation a little differently: he said we knew some places where WMD's WERE, and showed satelite pics of how the WMD's were subsequently REMOVED and all TRACES COVERED UP. The Iraqis have years of practice at this.

And, the US administration has consistantly criticized Blix & Co. for not interviewing Iraqi scientists -- those who could lead us to where the WMD's are hidden. Indeed, that's our policy now.

Of course, someone as clever as you, Rich, could just wander over there and stumble across the stuff -- while you're protecting the museums.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

02:31 PM

Comments

No Rich, your memory serves you well! Yes, Mr. Powell DID state on several occasions that US military intelligence had exact locations of Iraqi WMDs. So where are they? good question. Were the weapons moved just before the US military attacked? Not likely, considering that the Pentagon had Saddam and his forces under constant satellite survelience for several months. And there is only one highway that leads into Syria, so any attempts to smuggle out WMDs would not exactly go un-noticed.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

02:38 PM

Comments

Notice the typical sarcastic right-wing post just below Rich's: further proof that when you know absolutely nothing about everything, just pretend that you do...simply 'fill in the blanks', and don't forget to be condescending! Hate is a diversion from one's own ignorance.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

02:39 PM

Comments

So I guess all of you folks who are now demanding to see all of Sadaam's WMD (because you HEARD the USA -- and the intelligence services of every other nation say he had'em and we knew where they WERE), will cheerfully and gratiously admit that George W. Bush is the greatest president of our generation when these things start turning up en masse? Right? When hell freezes over?

Have patience, friends. We don't want this stuff in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or the PLO or Al Qaeda. We'll round up as much of as we can. A little gelt and the threat of Gitmo and the guys we have in custody will come clean.

Better start weaselling up your next complaint.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

02:46 PM

Comments

Oooh, was I condescending? Sorry. Like when you guys tickle your funnybones with Bush is a dummy jokes? Some dummy. He's cleaned your clocks everytime out.

The really sad part is that you can take no joy in the progress our country has made. From the depths of self pity and victomhood and adolescent games of the Clinton era we've regained our self respect and sense of purpose. Even on college campuses the aging lefties are in retreat (and dying off). Kids today have more sense than most folks give them credit for.

Of course, you people will never grow up.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

02:49 PM

Comments

It's too bad nobody was critical of Donald Rumsfeld during the Reagan Administration when he considered Saddam 'a good friend and ally' and provided the 'evil one'(Saddam) with massive stockpiles of missles, bombs, and biological-chemical weapons. (there are some really nice photos of Rummy hugging Saddam back in '81). The Reagan Administration also supplied financial and political support to Saddam's regime. Funny how things change: I wonder who the US will prop-up in power this time? By judging the US government's track record, probally somebody that will need 'removal' in about ten years, give or take a couple.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

03:03 PM

Comments

I don't know who you are, though you obviously have very low self-esteem. I won't get into a debate with you, because you obviously won't listen. I never said Bush was stupid: I think he is actually smart...I just don't agree with some of his policies. I am not a Clinton fan, though I don't believe all of the fabrications that were generated by the radical conservatives. The Clinton years were bad? let's see: unemployment was at record lows, we actually had a surplus instead of a deficit, there were jobs, the economy was the strongest in over fifty years...yea, those were the 'dark ages' in America.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

03:30 PM

Comments

I would not go as far as to say that GW Bush is the 'greatest president of this generation': that's really stretching it a bit. "The Bush family has so many skeletons it their closet, it's a wonder that they can even shut the door". Bush did not 'steal the 2000 election': he simply bought it instead. George W. comes from a long line of men who have 'questionable' ethics. His grandfather, Prescott Bush, was the main figure in a scandal involving the bank he was chairman of during the 1930's. Prescott, along with a few other 'family members', were caught engaging in 'war-time profiteering': they had been conducting a rather lucrative business with Adolf Hitler, and were very instrumental in providing the Nazis finnacial services, even after the US declared war on Germany. Not surprisingly, George Sr. continued the 'family tradition': as head of the CIA, Bush was instrumental in the organization's drug and arms trafficking in Central and South America. When he became vice-president under Reagan, it was George Sr. who organized a secret group that engaged in selling weapons for money, and drugs for money, which was soon discovered by Congress...the Iran-Contra affair. Ironically, several convicted felons from that incident have been appointed to sensitive positions within the government, by none-other-than George jr.: Elliot Abrams, John Poindexter, Otto Riech, and John Negroponte. These individuals are also the 'founding fathers' of an elitist right-wing organization-'think tank' that calls itself "Project for the New American Century". It's goals are to spread 'Americanism', and control vital global resources through 'superior military strength'. This Utopian fantasy is nothing new: Hitler attempted it over half a century ago...with rather disasterous results.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

03:37 PM

Comments

Oooh, by the way: thank you very much! I am one of those 'kids' that are alot smarter than old geezers like you give us credit for! 'you people' just need to roll over and die...you are the fossil here!

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

04:00 PM

Comments

Ok, I've got some time and you folks seem to like getting your cages rattled -- so let's have some fun.

" It's too bad nobody was critical of Donald Rumsfeld during the Reagan Administratio"

What a hoot! Is this the best you can come up with? So Rummy was a good soldier for Ron? I guess you weren't a big fan of Reagan, either. Too bad he was responsible for the demise of the USSR -- you're left with France to look up to.

"you obviously have very low self-esteem"

I've been accused of a lot of things, but not that.

"The Clinton years were [not] bad? ..."

Show me his hand! What exactly did he do during those years to take the credit you're so willing to give him? Oh yeah, he blew up a camel in Afghanistan to show the world how serious we are when our embassies were blown up. George W. Bush, on the other hand ...

"The Bush family has so many skeletons it their closet, it's a wonder that they can even shut the door".

Oh yeah, lots of insight here. More carping about secret cabals. Do you hear strange voices?

"'you people' just need to roll over and die"

That's about the level of debate (and good humor) I'd expect to find on a radical lefty board.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

05:22 PM

Comments

The failure to date of the Pentagon to turn up evidence that any weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq poses obvious problems for the Bush administration. The unprovoked war was manifestly illegal, waged without the sanction of the UN and without any prior attack from Iraq. The absence of chemical or biological weapons would only confirm what millions around the world have already concluded: the justification for the war was nothing but a pack of lies.

Date:

04/22/03

Time:

05:53 PM

Comments

Here's one you really should NOT miss.

Read Now:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042103_wolves.html

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

09:04 AM

Comments

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when asked what evidence the U.S. would present to counter claims that any weapons of mass destruction found were planted, answered, in part, “I don't think we'll discover anything The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will. What we will do is find the people who will tell us.

We have ways.”

New York Times

_____

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

12:02 PM

Comments

Dear New York Times,

I just checked your archives, and the quote you cite should have ended with the word, "us". Of course, you often play fast and loose with the words of other folks, such as your omission of the words, "a bit" from the words of general Wallace.

Indeed, you do have ways. Fortunately, most of them became obsolete with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

12:04 PM

Comments

THEY LOOTED THE MUSEUM? TOUGH

On our letters page last week, Douglas Anthony Cooper of Montreal chided me for my throwaway line about the anti-war crowd’s sudden interest in property crime: “Steal the photocopier from Baghdad’s Ministry of Genital Clamping and they’re pining for the smack of firm government.”

“Some matters reside beyond the domain of comedy,” writes Mr Cooper. “The rape of the National Museum of Iraq and the torching of the National Library will be lamented by historians for centuries.” He concludes, “A man of Mr Steyn’s sensibilities – beneath the sneer I detect a partisan of Western civilization – ought to find this an occasion of immense sorrow.”

Mr Cooper deserves a response. I am “a partisan of Western civilization”, yet I do not feel “immense sorrow” at the fate of the National Museum. Clearly, many people do. Boris Johnson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, was a-huffin’ and a-puffin’ about it last week and hinted strongly that it was all part of some Yank conspiracy to deliver the Iraqi people’s birthright to “the guest washrooms of Floridian real estate kings”. I don’t know what Boris has against Florida realtors – possibly he was on the wrong end of some timeshare deal – but I wouldn’t have thought a squatting Akkadian king of circa 2,300 BC was quite their bag. In any case, it appears the western jurisdiction in which the first Iraqi artifacts have turned up is not Florida but Paris. Quelle surprise!

The National Museum fell victim not to general looting but to a heist, if not an inside job, for which the general lawlessness provided cover. Am I sorry it happened? Yes, because it has given the naysayers, who were wrong about the millions of dead civilians, humanitarian catastrophe, environmental devastation, regional conflagration, etc, one solitary surviving itsybitsy teeny-weeny twig from their petrified forest with which to whack Rumsfeld and co. The retrospective armchair generals are now complaining the generals didn’t devote enough thought to saving armchairs from the early Calcholithic age. It isn’t enough for America to kill hardly any civilians or even terribly many enemy combatants or bomb any buildings or unduly disrupt the water or electric supply, it also has to protect Iraq’s heritage from Iraqis.

That assumption speaks volumes. But it also begs the question: what was this stuff doing in Baghdad in the first place? Can you even get insurance for it?

Purely by coincidence, at the exact time the treasure house was being emptied, I was rummaging around in Iraqi history for a speech I was giving in New York. The founder of the Baghdad Museum and the country’s first Director of Antiquities was Gertrude Bell, who in her capacity as advisor to Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill can more or less claim to have invented modern Iraq. Gertrude Bell was one of those British colonial figures more native than the natives: she is believed to have traveled more miles by camel than any other non-Arab in the history of the world.

Before Miss Bell, it was taken for granted that anything unearthed by western archaeologists in the Middle East would be taken to the British Museum or the other great repositories of the past’s glories. For all the casual slurs about “cultural imperialism”, British imperialists were more interested in other cultures than anybody before or since, and, if they hadn’t dug it up and taken care of it, we’d know hardly anything about the ancient world. If you find archaeology rather dry and dreary, you can get an easily digestible glimpse of the way it used to be if you buy a copy of Agatha Christie’s thriller Murder In Mesopotamia, whose Dr Leidner is a thinly disguised variation of the archaeologist Sir Leonard Woolley, drawn from Dame Agatha’s experiences at the famous dig at Ur in 1928.

But now we know better. So Iraq’s past was entrusted not to the British Museum but to Saddam Hussein. I use the term “Iraq’s past” loosely. Mankind’s first experiments in agriculture and village life took place on the soil of what is now Iraq. Inhabitants of this land invented writing, and the first legal code, and possibly the wheel. But in the millennia between Gilgamesh, King of Nippur, and Saddam Hussein, President of Saddamland, any connection, ethnic, linguistic, religious or cultural, between the subjects of the former and those of the latter has withered to nothing. An Iraqi is no more likely than a Texan to be a descendant of Sumer, and the Lone Star State can stake a more plausible claim to Sumer’s civilizational inheritance.

Present-day Iraq was home to the ancient cultures of Babylonia and Sumeria in much the same way that my property in New Hampshire was once home to NBC celebrity doctor Bob “Doctor Bob” Arnot. It would be foolish to come to me asking for advice on the side-effects of Rogaine: Doctor Bob’s legacy is not to be found at my pad. Likewise, whatever the innovations in writing, law, agriculture and village life once pioneered by previous owners of the lot, modern Iraq has squandered them: Writing? Banned. Agriculture? We drained the marshes. Village life? Do what we say or we’ll kill you. Law? You gotta be kidding. Mesopotamia may be “the cradle of civilization”, but civilization learned to walk and talk and graduated to long pants in Greece and Rome and London and North America and Australia and India and Japan and St Lucia and Papua New Guinea, and what was once the cradle became, in the last four decades, the toilet of civilization – a place incapable of inventing the industrial shredder but anxious to import them for the purpose of feeding human beings into.

Boris Johnson called the Iraqi museum’s contents “the equivalent of the Crown Jewels, things that were meant eternally to incarnate the culture of your land.” But the Crown Jewels matter because they symbolize reality – the peaceful constitutional order that the Queen’s subjects have enjoyed for centuries. By contrast, the contents of the Baghdad museum symbolize everything that the monstrous reality of Saddam’s Iraq rejected – law, government, progress, innovation, vitality. So a lawless regime preserved the records of the first legal code in a glass case, and for most of the last few years you couldn’t even get in to see it. The past was just another Saddamite plaything, appropriated for some useful regime-propping imagery but otherwise disposable. Before they got diverted into jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon, the students of antiquity were more concerned with Saddam’s dam project at Makhul, which was threatening to submerge Assur, the old capital of the Assyrian empire. There’s a fine image: civilisation’s cradle being thrown out by the Baath water. As usual, it fell to British, American and European archaeological teams to plan to rescue as much of “Iraq’s past” as they could.

Civilization’s artifacts belong not to the real estate on which they were found but to the civilization they underpin. One day Iraq will be part of that civilized world: it will have not only a museum worthy of its past, but a present reality worthy of it, too. The desecration of Mesopotamia’s legacy took place not in the last ten days but in the last four decades. Baghdad’s citizens merely helped themselves to the few things that were left, whether office furniture or potshards. What’s important about a nation’s past is not what it keeps walled up in the museum but what it keeps outside, living and breathing as every citizen’s inheritance.

Mark Steyn

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

01:05 PM

Comments

It sounds like you are the one getting your own cage rattled. The former Soviet Union collapsed due to the fact that it was built on a corrupt system of isolationism and militarism, instead on one of capitalism, trade, and open global markets. Gorby had alot more to do with ending the Communist regime than Reagan...and I did like Reagan, I just did not agree with all of his foreign policies. I think Gorby should get more credit for his important role, however. You really did not eleaborate very well on Clinton: he blew-up several sites in response, one of which turned out to be a big pharmacy...though that was mainly due to typically bad CIA intelligence, which has plagued several administrations. I don't remember any camels, though I do not read the National Enquirer either. I am also a Libertarian, not one of those 'radical lefties'. Judging from your pervious responses, you make alot of false accusations based on nothing more than personal biases, misinformation (FOX news, no doubt)...and your claims that 'little green liberal elves' are sabotaging America. If anyone is 'bad for the USA', it's George W. Bush, his weak foreign and domestic policies, and his rush into war without seriously considering the future consequences...and I know many Republicans who feel the same way. Our nation has not become any safer, only more at risk: has anyone seen Osama lately?

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

01:17 PM

Comments

On a differet note: none other than Bill O'Riley has joined in on placing blame on the US military for it's lack of effort in protecting the Iraqi museum and it's priceless artifacts. O'Riley, a former history teacher, personally blamed the military for being more interested in protecting the Oil Ministry instead of the culture, not to mention the people, of Iraq. O'Riley has also been very vocal regarding the military's incomptence in stoping looters and crime in Iraq's major cities: the Iraqi people are not being protected as promised by the Bush Administration.

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

01:21 PM

Comments

"...this radical lefty board.": so why then do you keep coming back?

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

04:28 PM

Comments

"he former Soviet Union collapsed due to the fact that it was built on a corrupt system of isolationism and militarism, instead on one of capitalism, trade, and open global markets."

I guess we should learn from their mistakes, and focus on our own capitalism, trade, and open global markets. I am glad that you and I can agree on the need to reduce taxes, eliminate tarifs, reduce burdensome regulations, enact tort reform.... And to think that for a while I thought you were a liberal.

Hugh G. Rackshun

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

05:58 PM

Comments

THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY...AGAIN: French now say war maybe was a good idea (CHENE BLIGNAUT, April 23, 2003, Christian Science Monitor Natalie Lavarra is having second thoughts about her position on the Iraq war.

''I still think it was right of [French President Jacques] Chirac to say no to the war,'' says the Paris secretary. ''But when I saw how happy the Iraqis were . . . I had to ask myself whether we didn't perhaps make a mistake.'' [...]

Chirac's staunch resistance boosted his popularity to an all-time high. But despite still scoring 65 percent approval ratings in French polls, his role has changed from that of an international hero walking the moral high ground to what appears to be a sulking lone voice, fighting not to be excluded from sharing in the spoils of the war.

The result, says Alain Madelin, a Conservative politician who opposed France's war policy, is that Chirac has been presented as Saddam's best friend.

''The Iraqis feel today they had been liberated without--and even against--the will of France,'' he says.

With apologies to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: The French--ten generations of imbeciles is enough.

Orrin Judd

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

07:17 PM

Comments

Just for the record:

Hardball host Chris Matthews went to New Haven and said in a speech, "I was wrong about the war." And, boy, he was. He couldn't have been more wrong if he had tried to be wrong. Nicholas Kristof came out in the New York Times, and tried to write a column admitting he was wrong, but he just couldn't bring himself to do it.

He admitted he was wrong here and there, but we were still much more wrong in other areas. He just couldn't bring himself to do it. These liberals were so wrong, and the people that were wrong are now hoping they're going to be right on the aftermath of the war. I know there are a lot of you out there concerned that the Bush administration has really blown it, and lost control of Iraq to the Shi'ites. Oh, ye of little faith.

It was only earlier this week that I had to remind people we were in Japan for seven years after the end of World War II. We were in West Germany for four years with our military another six beyond that. Eighty years after our own founding we had the Civil War, for crying out loud. To expect this stuff in Iraq to just roll off the assembly line is crazy.

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

07:22 PM

Comments

There has been a lot of criticism on this page about the Bush admisnitratin (mainly Cheney's) ties with Haliburton and the contracts Haliburton received in pst war Iraq.

First Remember Chenynis no longer on the board OR a stock holder in Haliburton.

URS Corporation, a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million. The award is to help with troop mobilization weapon systems training and anti-terrorism efforts. It's the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS.

In February, the firm won an Army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in $3.1 billion during the next eight years. That's billion with a capital "B." Feinstein's husband served on the company's board of directors and controls about 24% of the firm's stock.

Feinstien's husband owns 24% of the stock?!?!? I knew the liberals were hippocrites, but come on - where is the outcry? This is far worse than anything the Bush administration has done.

But then again, liberals have never used any rational sense. I'm sure ths is ok with them. They will never say Feinstein and her husband is wrong. Thjey will just spin it to blame Republicans.

Matilda?

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

09:48 PM

Comments

I did not kn ow about Mr Feinstein. I do however know about Mrs Linda Dashle. She is the former Miss Kansas for whom Tom Dashle dumped his first wife (the woman who in 1978 had helped him ring 40,000 doorbells and go on to unseat an incumbent by 14 votes, and the mother of his three children)

"For instance, among Linda Daschle's clients is American Airlines, which has had six fatal crashes since 1994 (not even including the World Trade Center flights). The airline has incurred thousands of dollars in federal fines for a host of safety violations, and its employees have been caught in embarrassing drug smuggling stings. Even as its planes have crashed, American has lobbied for years to water down safety and security regulations that might have helped foil the World Trade Center attacks. Yet thanks in part to lobbying efforts by Daschle---and support from her husband---American Airlines got a free pass in the recent airline bailout bill, escaping most legal liability for the hijackings and getting $583 million in cash grants---taxpayer money it will never have to repay."

Remember, Republicans steal, cheat, lie, and care only about the rich. Democrats care about the little people, and don't care about money.

Date:

04/23/03

Time:

10:03 PM

Comments

Haha HahahaHaha HahahaHaha HahahaHaha HahahaHaha Hahaha!!!!!!!

Date:

04/24/03

Time:

06:53 AM

Comments

"...this radical lefty board.": so why then do you keep coming back?"

Hi, I'm back. Did you miss me? In fact, this USED to be a radical lefty board. Lately, it seems pretty evenly split in terms of numbers. When taking into account substance and logical analysis, the right wing seems to have the edge.

peter

Date:

04/24/03

Time:

10:58 AM

Comments

"When taking into account substance and logical analysis, the right wing seems to have the edge. "

Not to mention, any sense of humor (good or haha). When I was a kid (and a JFK liberal), it was the Republicans who were the old fogies -- the grumpy old men -- distinctly humorless and disapproving. Now it seems the reverse. Intelectual vigor and good sense -- and sense of honour -- seems to be the provence of the right and grumpiness and stoginess (and iodiocy) is owned by the left.

Date:

04/24/03

Time:

11:52 AM

Comments

War? What war? One of the largest, most sophisticated, and high-tech military forces to ever exist on earth defeated a third-rate, under-manned, under-equipped, under-trained excuse for a fighting force: the Iraqi army. Did anyone actually expect 'a real war'? Of course the US military steam-rolled over Iraq with ease...there was not much that stood in the way. This was a raid: the rotten door, Saddam's regime, was kicked in, and the house taken over. The 'war' is not over yet: this was a battle...not the end.

Date:

04/24/03

Time:

12:14 PM

Comments

I would not go as far as to say that the conservative right exactly has 'a good sense of humor...intellectual vigor...or honor': that's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Humor? only if petty insults, sarcastic remarks, and mean-spirited, condesending attitudes are your idea of what is 'funny': Ann Coulter and Michael Savage do not qualify as 'stand-ups'. What is amusing: how the conservatives enjoy 'dishing it out', only to cry 'foul' when the favor is returned. Intellectual vigor? If your idea of 'intellectual' is Newt Gingrich...well, need I say more? I think that name says it all. Honor? I suggest that you do a web-search for "chickenhawks" and see how many Republicans avoided military service, and how they did it. You will find such 'patriots' as: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, George "AWOL" W. Bush, Richard 'Dick' Cheney, Elliot Abrams, John "The Honduran Butcher" Negroponte, Rush Limbaugh...who could'nt go to Vietnam because of infectous 'anal cysts', though he and Newt have stated that 'they wish they could have gone'. Yea, right.

Date:

04/24/03

Time:

03:22 PM

Comments

"War, what war? I don't see any war"

Then why were you bozos so stridently determined to forstall it? OOOHHH! I get it -- you bought into the idea of Sadamm the Humanitarian! Sadaam the PeaceLover!

What was it tha semi-fair Janeane Garafalo (would a pessimist describe her as "slightly scuzzy"?) cried out? "If we attack Iraq, we're doomed! DOOMED!

Some doom. Some war! Go USA!

On liberal humor -- thanks for your example, "Newt Gingrich...well, need I say more? I think that name says it all." I'll bet you think dubya is a joke, too. Let us know when you'll next be on SNL.

Date:

04/25/03

Time:

03:25 PM

Comments

Tim Robbins, et al -- properly skewered in "Blacklist Envy" by Hugh Hewitt in the Daily Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/591jonvg.asp

Date:

04/25/03

Time:

06:11 PM

Comments

As I stated earlier, as you might recall, I said nothing negative about George W., and I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to put words in people's mouths: I know you have a wildly vivid imagination, however, let's try to stick with what has been actually stated, and not trying to be a 'mind reader'. There is a difference between being critcal of someone's opinion, and attacking them personally. For example: I don't agree entirely with what Nat Maines of the Dixie Chicks had to say, however, I am not a member of the legions of hate-filled, ignorant people who have posted messages on their website "hoping they all die", or "get murdered", and even "lose their children"...and those are the 'nice' things people have said. I am proud to be an American...I am not proud that many of my fellow Americans are so full of blind hate, ignorance, and intolerance.

Date:

04/25/03

Time:

06:24 PM

Comments

Instead of worrying about what the Hollywood celebs are saying, how about paying some attention to the real threats to our nation's national security: Richard Perle, as some of you might recall in a previous post, was forced to resign from his intel position at the Pentagon a couple weeks ago for "wartime profiteering", which under Article Three of the US Constitution is 'treason'. Perle, along with several other members of the 'Project for the New American Century', have moved forward with their palns to sell an American telecommunications company, which is primarily used by the US military, to a Chinese company in Singapore...which is a 'front company' for the Red Army. Perle and company, including Bush and Cheney investment interests, stand to make billions in profits, while at the same time placing vital communication technology in foreign hands. I guess this isn't as important compared with Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon making an anti-war statement,though.

Date:

04/25/03

Time:

06:27 PM

Comments

...and what's wrong with SNL anyway?

Date:

04/25/03

Time:

06:30 PM

Comments

...and I also see that nobody has said anything, or has avoided saying anything, about my "chickenhawk" list...

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

04:33 AM

Comments

"it is no exaggeration to say that lying has become Bush's signature as president…More distressing even than the president's lies, though, is the public's apparent passivity. Bush just seems to get away with it."

Before you dismiss this statement as just another of Matilda's "exaggerations", do yourself the favor of reading this article please;

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/042503Binion/042503binion.html

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

08:07 AM

Comments

OK, Matilda, I read the article. And, I don't get it.

You and your fellow travelers trumpet wild claims (like "Bush lies and manipulates public and Congress"). But when one gets past the hyperbole and reads the text that's meant to substantiate the claim -- there's nothing there. There's an absolute disconnect between the claims and what purports to exemplify them. The litany of these wild claims is all of the form, "My interpretation of what he said is different than my categorization of what he subsequently did". These are lies????

Matilda, it's a serious business to call someone a liar. In (most of) America, we take pride in our good name. I understand your resentment that former President William Jefferson Clinton is a convicted liar -- but that doesn't make it right for you to act out your frustrations by calling other people names.

Matilda, I challenge you (and every participant on this board): Come up with ONE (so-called) lie by Bush that -- if given under oath -- would constitute perjury.

Put up or shut up!

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

09:33 AM

Comments

Excellent piece by Jim Hoagland in today's WAPO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39803-2003Apr25.html

For thinking men and women who value the reasoned opinions of adults.

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

09:43 AM

Comments

"Instead of worrying about what the Hollywood celebs are saying ..."

I don't care what Tim Robbins says. But Matilda does. Shouldn't we try to rebut the nonsense she posts in her "updates"? Especially when she relies on his rantings as reason?

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

08:23 PM

Comments

Well, so now we are calling Bush a liar. Coming from the mouth of people who defended Bill "Zipper" Clinton, that is, as Monica would say, quite a mouthful.

Peter

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

08:27 PM

Comments

The Tax System and Tax cuts in terms that most people can understand. Maybe it is even simple enough for some of the liberals here to understand....NOT.

Suppose that every day, ten men of various means go out for dinner. The bill for all ten men (@ $10 each) comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill in the same way we pay our taxes. The story went something like this: The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing; The fifth would pay $1: The sixth would pay $3; The seventh $7; The eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man - the richest - would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So...

...So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being "paid" to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. So now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth (wealthiest) man and beat him up. The next night tending to his injuries, the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. So, the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

----------- Let the "yes, but.." begin.

Peter

P.S. just to prove our sense of humor, any good liberal jokes out there?

Date:

04/26/03

Time:

10:39 PM

Comments

"In America we take pride in our good name..." Good name? Well, that is debatable...it would depend on exactly who you ask: opinions vary. Clinton was not convicted of anything criminal...unlike the felons in the Bush Administration: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, to name just a few, were all convicted and imprisoned for their invlovement in the Iran-Contra Affair. So Clinton lied under oath about a 'blow job': so what, ...it's not like he was conducting a private war behind Congress's back, or was selling arms illegally to terrorist organizations, or training terrorist groups and over-seeing the executions of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, or was making illegal business deals and frauding the taxpayers billions. Unfortunately, the right-wing has done a good job of creating rumors, propaganda, and out-right lies, which many Americans ignorantly believe to be 'facts', while those who claim to be honorable and patriotic continue to sell-out this nation: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney will all make millions of dollars through the sale of US telecommunications technology to the Chinese. Donald Rumsfeld, a multi-millionaire with six 'luxurious homes', continues to profit from the Swiss technology firm he once headed, know as AAB...which continues to sell nuclear technology to North Korea, China, and several former Soviet states.

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

06:36 AM

Comments

"Clinton was not convicted of anything criminal...unlike the felons in the Bush Administration: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, to name just a few, were all convicted and imprisoned for their invlovement in the Iran-Contra Affair."

Where do you people get your "facts"? Here's the summary of prosecutions for inran-contra:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm

The only "name" in your list who was even involoved with iran-contra was Poindexter, who was cleared of all charges.

This is the problem with you radical lefties -- one of you lies and the rest swear to it. You have a pathological hatred for George W. Bush that has no basis in reason. You hate because it's easier demonize him than it would be to re-examine the failures of your fundamental beliefs.

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

09:28 AM

Comments

From today's UK Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

(more)

Matilda, why don't you post the whole article on your updates page?

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

10:34 AM

Comments

More conservative humor: Parody: Ye Newe York Times reports on postwar difficulties following victory at Yorktown. From the Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/610rshcr.asp

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

10:49 AM

Comments

By John Cochran of ABC news

W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

[Now I ask you, friends, when someone says something that isn’t true, don’t we call that a lie? “A matter of emphasis”? Another lie.—Caro]

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

01:41 PM

Comments

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

Doncha just love it when these "unnamed" officials make these pithy remarks?

Let me 'splain what's going on. There are some very unhappy people in our Department of State. They are coming under (well descrived and) increasing scrutiny for their performance and for their unerring ability to always come up on the wrong side of history. Newt's broadside is just a hint of what's to come.

For years, State has been accused of "clientitus" -- a prediliction to see things from the viewpoint of the nations they deal with (their clients). The real problem is that State has long been bought and paid for -- just like LMP Galloway.

Now the Pentagon is in the ascendancy, and there are changes afoot. And State doesn't like it.

So, my friends, you can expect to see more of these quotes from "unnamed" officials published in the left wing media.

Now, for the practical import of all of this, time will tell. There's zero liklihood that we won't find WMD (why else would Sadaam have resisted the inspections so strongly?). And we all can look forward to have a hearty laugh at the left as they scramble to find a new argument on which to hang their hats.

OBTW, I think ABC has some breaking news about the first confirmed major WMD find.

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

04:15 PM

Comments

Senators Diana Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, John McCain, et el.......

Why on earth are you Senators arguing over whether it should be a $700 billion or a $550 billion or a $350 billion package when, in fact, somebody in those chambers needs to point out that you all screwed up big time with the first tax cut package in '01? Have any of you taken a good look around lately? It's as stupid as letting the drunk driver who ran over your kid drive him to the hospital! Americans are out of work and out of money. They have lost their life savings at the hands of Bush pals who scammed them. (These are the ones who will benefit from the tax cut.) And, to make matters worse, they're getting away with it - still. America has become roguish, paranoid and ignorant and is looked upon with suspicion and loathing by the world community. America has become a nation of people governed through lies, fear and a perverted sense of what passes for "patriotism."

NO NEW TAX CUTS.......USE SOME COMMON SENSE.....

Date:

04/27/03

Time:

07:03 PM

Comments

Right on!!! It's just crazy to cut taxes. In fact, wouldn't things work a whole lot better if the government just took 100% of everyone's earnings and distributed the monies as it sees fit?

Kind of like, "From each, according to his ability. To each according to his need."

Date:

04/28/03

Time:

12:29 AM

Comments

My 'fundemental beliefs'? Would you be referring to the US Constitution? Yoy keep using the term 'left' without any knowledge of what you are talking about...typical of a pundit. You want to talk about hate? Then look no futher than the facist right-wing conservatives who are preaching it as gosphel: I don't see too many 'liberals' burning books these days. Yes, John Poindexter was pardoned, by George Bush Sr., a fellow participant in the Iran-Contra Affair...go figure.

Date:

04/28/03

Time:

12:44 AM

Comments

It's not too much to ask of the Bush Administration for some proof to back up their claims that Saddam had WMDs, and more importantly, that he was going to actually use them. For six months Bush made claim after claim that these weapons existed...though even after nearly a month of US military occupation of Iraq, no evidence can be found. Barrels of various chemicals have been found, though the contents have turned out to be pesticides and fertilizers: no anthrax, no VX nerve agents. Bio-chemical agents will turn up, and some have already, though in very small quantities, not the 'vast arsenal' claimed by Administration officals.

Date:

04/28/03

Time:

01:01 AM

Comments

"Where do you people get your facts..." A better question would be 'where do you get yours'? Judging by your response, you are becoming more and more irrational. As far as 'lies' go, you can believe everything those 'sanitized for your protection' right-wing websites' claim: all of the people I listed were directly involved, prosecuted, and found guilty...I did forget to mention Oliver "the bagman" North, though I guess he was just 'a soldier following orders', or something like that.

Date:

04/28/03

Time:

09:12 AM

Comments

No, John Poindexter wasn’t pardoned. His conviction was overturned on appeal (as was Ollie North’s). Cap Weinberger and a few others were pardoned.

The honest debate over the Iran-Contra affair (which is over opposing branches of our federal government acting without legal authority) is whether these kinds of things are better handled by the ballot box or by “special prosecutors”. The Dims used to be big fans of the prosecutorial approach – having drawn blood in the Watergate affair. Their ardor cooled when they discovered ala Clinton that all swords cut both ways.

Now you want proof that ”more importantly …that [Saddam] was going to actually use [WMD]”? This is called “moving the goal posts”. You would be more credible if you could learn to admit to your mistakes. You do yourself a disservice when you dissemble. The real difference between the Left and the Right is that the Right has intellectual honesty, moral integrity, and a sense of shame.

I’m certain that we’ll find evidence of the existence of WMD and ties to terrorists (Al Qaeda in particular). And I’m real patient (I don’t have to scramble to find new arguments to justify my silliness). The real threat of Saddam was that he would deliver WMD to the terrorists (like the “pinch” of Anthrax that disrupted our lives in the fall of 2001).

What books are being burned? Please provide a link. I haven’t heard about this.

Date:

04/28/03

Time:

12:03 PM

Comments

From the people who debate the meaning of "is", we get a lecture on the meaning of lying. BTW the charges were obstruction of justice and lying under oath. Would saying it was "only a lie about sex" qualify as a lie? I guess it depends on your definition of lying. You say it is not a lie when Bill Clinton says he does not understand the definition of "is" or what sex may be. So much for your objectivity.

Interesting reading, if you are able to read without moving your lips. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/

Date:

04/29/03

Time:

07:05 AM

Comments

Gather round, children, and listen to a story about the kinds of news that used to preoccupy Americans before war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, terrorism, a nearly stolen election and Monica Lewinsky.

Before those massive earthquakes hit America, we spent a good deal of time, passion and heat debating other matters -- some trivial, some not.

One of the hardest-fought issues of the 1990s was welfare reform. Republicans lobbied for reform; Democrats, including the putatively pro-reform President Clinton, stoutly resisted. Conservatives argued that welfare had become not a safety net but a hammock -- that millions of children were growing up in chaotic, unstable and permanently poor homes at least in part because the federal government was subsidizing unwed motherhood.

Liberals countered that reformers were misers, perfectly willing to lavish "corporate welfare" on the rich but overly eager to punish society's poorest members. They predicted that reform would create a Dickensian world of paupers, featuring women and children sleeping under bridges. With an election looming and persuaded that a third veto might damage his chances of victory, the president signed a welfare reform law.

That was 1996. In the period since, we've seen perhaps the greatest public policy success since the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and yet it is hardly mentioned. But then, it's not really surprising that some people want to change the subject.

After all, groups like the Children's Defense Fund and the Urban Institute have been proved badly mistaken. As Heritage Foundation scholars Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan note, the CDF predicted that the welfare reform law would lead to increases in "child poverty nationwide by 12 percent ... make children hungrier ... (and) reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families with children in the nation." The Urban Institute issued a report forecasting that the new law would push 2.6 million people into poverty, 1.1 million of them children.

Instead, since the law was enacted, welfare caseloads have been cut in half. The poverty rate has fallen from 13.8 percent in 1995 to 11.7 percent in 2001. Some of this may have been the good economy (though welfare case loads continued to rise during the '80s boom), but even during the current recession, welfare dependence has continued to decline.

Nearly 3 million children have risen out of poverty since 1995, and the decreases in child poverty have been most pronounced among black children. The overall child poverty rate was 20.8 percent in 1995, compared with 16.3 percent in 2001. And in 2001, despite a poor economy, the poverty rate among black children reached its lowest point in history.

To appreciate the steep and sudden decline after 1996, picture a graph with a fairly steady line hovering between 40 percent and 46 percent for 25 years. Black child poverty was actually higher in 1983 than in 1970. Then, after about 1994 (which predates the actual reform law but not the national discussion of it), the graph plunges down to 30 percent. Still too high to be sure, but considered out-of-reach less than a decade ago.

The post-reform period has also seen dramatic reductions in child hunger, with an estimated 1.2 percent of children suffering hunger in 1995 compared with 0.6 percent in 2001.

The children of single mothers are significantly better off after welfare reform. As a Manhattan Institute study "Gaining Ground" makes clear, single mothers' cash income increased by 21 percent between 1995 and 2000, even after averaging in those reporting zero income. The poverty level for single mothers accordingly fell from 41.9 percent in 1996 to 33.6 percent in 2001. Even among the so-called hard cases -- single mothers who are black or Hispanic, high school dropouts and never married -- the poverty rate fell by 17 percent.

The study also found that the longer single moms remained off welfare, the better they fared economically, with an average pay increase of 2 percent a year (and 3 percent for those who remained with the same employer).

Finally, the rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing, rising steadily for three decades, suddenly stopped increasing in the mid-1990s. Among blacks, the rate, which had reached 70.4 percent, actually began to decline.

This is a humanitarian triumph that must honestly be laid at the feet of conservatives and Republicans, who pushed so hard to achieve it and endured abuse on the subject for years.

Mona Caren

Date:

04/29/03

Time:

07:25 AM

Comments

Nice Mona. Clear, full of facts and rational thoughts. I'm sure it won't be taken well by the liberals on this page. Too bad for them it can't be argued with.

Date:

04/29/03

Time:

09:15 AM

Comments

The depth of the Clinton administration’s intelligence failure becomes clearer.

The unearthing of documents directly linking Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization to Saddam Hussein this weekend may have hermetically sealed the Bush administration's case that dismantling Iraq's Baathist enterprise was in part necessary to undo terrorism's dynamic duo. But closing that case may reopen a Pandora's box for ex-Clinton administration officials who still believe their policy prescriptions protected U.S. national interests against the growing threat of terrorism during the past decade.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.asp

Date:

04/30/03

Time:

06:07 AM

Comments

<<Tony Blair's first public attempt to heal the diplomatic wounds of the Iraq war suffered a humiliating rebuff yesterday when Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, refused to lift UN sanctions and mocked the possibility that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. >>

AND

<<But Mr Putin said Russia and its partners "believe until clarity is achieved over whether weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, sanctions should be kept in place". Almost mocking Mr Blair, he went on: "Where is Saddam? Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere in a bunker underground, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and bring down the lives of thousands of Iraqi people." >>

Read the rest at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,946322,00.html

Date:

04/30/03

Time:

08:39 AM

Comments

“Putin said Russia and its partners "believe until clarity is achieved over whether weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, sanctions should be kept in place"

This is truly amusing. For the past several years Putin et al were pressing for sanctions to be lifted because there “was no evidence” that Saddam had WMD. And (of course), the principal beneficiaries of sanctions were the nations (and thugs) who participated in the “Oil for Palaces” program that regulated these sanctions (I think Russia’s take was over 7B).

All of this silliness is meant to try to force the US to give in to a continuation of the gravy train for Russia, France, and Germany.

Ain’t gonna happen. There’s a new sheriff in town.

The US doesn’t need the UN; the UN needs the US. If Putin or Chirac veto the lifting of sanctions (continuing the hypocrisy), the US will ignore it – either buying Iraqi oil directly or selling it as the steward of Iraqi natural resources pursuant to the Hague treaty of 1907.

Date:

04/30/03

Time:

09:03 AM

Comments

"I commend the president on his leadership" -- Ted Kennedy

http://online.wsj.com/article/0

Date:

04/30/03

Time:

09:21 AM

Comments

Everything the Left Said About the War Is Wrong -- David Horowitz

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidhorowitz/dh20030430.shtml

Date:

04/30/03

Time:

09:22 AM

Comments

Some of my favorite things these days are the clips I've saved of various politicians and pundits predicting that the war in Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster for America, the world, the universe . .

Paul Greenberg

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20030430.shtml

Date:

05/01/03

Time:

06:31 AM

Comments

Yet another Dimocratic lie exposed:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021218-363082.htm