Date:

07/14/03

Time:

08:35 AM

Comments

More of what Matilda won't tell you about the goings-on in France:

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

French Actors Trip Government

Performers' Benefits Fight Brings Art Festivals To a Halt and May Boost Labor-Union Tension

Date:

07/15/03

Time:

01:53 PM

Comments

I hopw that now it has been shown that President Bush did not lie during his state of the Union Address, the liberals will be shown for what they are.

Their goal is to divide and bring down the United States in order to gain back control of the White House. They will lie and distort the truth to make the US look bad and have our citizens start to doubt themselves. They are the enemies of the State and should be treated as such.

Date:

07/15/03

Time:

02:22 PM

Comments

In defense of the indefensible:

While I truly believe the American Communist Party (aka the Democrat party) is motivated solely by a lust for power -- I can't go quite as far as the previous poster and call them "enemies of the state".

Besides, the radical opposition to what has become a very main-stream administration is such an amalgamation of special-interests that they really don't present a real alternative vision of America's needs and goals.

The Dimocrats have become the "we're not Republican" party. They stand for nothing. They are against everything.

Date:

07/15/03

Time:

08:40 PM

Comments

A message for Matilda:

JAMES TARANTO Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:55 p.m. EDT

The Dems' Anger-Management Problem Two weeks behind us, USA Today has noticed that Howard Dean is making impressive use of the Internet, both to raise money and to bring together his supporters. "The Internet benefits insurgents," political scientist Carol Darr tells the paper. "It is a way for candidates who can connect with people to make an end-run around the established process." Dean's supporters are enthusiastic: "It's just one person talking to another, talking to another," says Christopher Rademacher, a 35-year-old Deanie. "It's truly something that's coming from the bottom up."

But Slate's Chris Suellentrop points out that there are dangers in such a decentralized campaign:

By encouraging so much spontaneous organization, Dean has--knowingly or unknowingly--ceded a lot of control to these unofficial groups. It's a gamble that may pay off, but it's still a gamble. If television took some power away from political parties and handed it to the candidates, the Internet has the potential to transfer that power again--this time by handing it to the voters or, more accurately, to organized activist groups like the ones that are now swarming around the Dean campaign. Dean hopes to assimilate the growing online liberal Borg, but it's possible that the Borg will assimilate Dean.

"The decentralized approach," Suellentrop warns, could "allow unofficial groups to hijack the Dean campaign, dilute Dean's message, and lead to strange arguments over who controls the 'authentic' Dean message."

The real danger here, though, isn't about the message but about the mood. Dean has emerged as the candidate of what we might call the Angry Left. This is a small but vocal segment of the electorate that has spent the past few years nursing a series of grievances--impeachment, Florida, Iraq--and building up a red-hot rage.

We've corresponded by e-mail with several members of the Angry Left, and while what they say often seems crazy, there's no denying the genuineness of their feelings. Dean's appeal to such honest emotions is what makes him by far the most interesting candidate in the race. It also could portend disaster for the Democratic Party.

Here's an e-mail we received today from an Angry Leftist, who mass-mailed it to more than 40 addresses:

While I abhor violence in any form, what I think needs to happen within this country is for riots to occur against this regime. Similar to the riots that took place back in the 1960s. Also, when the RNC invades NYC next year for their convention, what needs to happen is riots similar to the one at the 1968 DNC convention in Chicago. There literally needs to be an explosion by the American people to wake the rest of the citizenry up.

We have no reason to think the writer of this missive is in any way associated with the Dean campaign, but the point is that it's an extreme expression of the mood he's tapping into--a mood, we might add, that seems to have grown more pronounced over the past couple of weeks as a result of the State of the Union kerfuffle.

But anger does not win presidential campaigns, and it's hard to think of a better way of ensuring George W. Bush's re-election than for his opponents to run riot in the streets of New York. Americans may be anxious about the economy, terrorism and war, but an anxious electorate needs reassurance, not rage. The problem for the Democrats is that their base is so furious, it may be impossible for them to nominate someone level-headed enough to make a plausible president.

Does anyone know what Matilda is FOR?

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

01:37 PM

Comments

Why does 9/11 Inquiry Scare Bush?

Berkshire Eagle | Editorial

The Bush administration has never wanted an inquiry into the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that led up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and it is doing its best to make sure we never get one. Even the tame commission of Washington insiders, led by men of the president's own party, is now complaining that its work is being hampered by foot-dragging from the Pentagon and Justice Department in producing documents and witnesses, in an effort to run the clock out on it before it can complete its work.

The commission's leaders have taken the extraordinary step of accusing the White House of witness "intimidation," insisting that sensitive witnesses testify only in the presence of a "monitor" from their agency. The parallel to Saddam Hussein's refusal to let Iraqi scientists talk to U.N. weapons inspectors without a similar monitor is too glaring to miss and begs the obvious question: What has Mr. Bush got to hide?

The crudeness of his tactics suggests that whatever it is, it must be pretty bad. The Internet is full of wild theories -- that Mr. Bush knew in advance of 9/11 and allowed it to happen so he could exploit it to get his way in domestic and international politics is the most notable -- and while cyberspace is the natural home of the improbable and the far-fetched, the administration's stonewalling only lends credence to those who believe a cover-up of something is going on.

September 11 was the most traumatic incident in recent American history. Three thousand people died in New York, billions in property was destroyed, the national economy tanked and Americans' sense of security was shattered. The men responsible for the attacks are still at large and openly threaten to attack us again. Yet the commission's budget is only $3 million, a pittance compared to the $100 million that was wasted getting to the bottom of Bill Clinton's Whitewater investment and his extramarital affairs. The hearings in the Republican-dominated Congress were a perfunctory affair that attracted even less attention from a sensation-oriented media than is being paid to this commission.

The American people deserve a thorough investigation. They want to know why the fighter jets weren't scrambled after the first plane hit the tower, what the Clinton and Bush administrations knew about threats from al-Qaida and what they were doing about them, what citizens of our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan financed Osama bin Laden and his hijackers, how the FBI and CIA missed obvious clues and let suspects they were following slip away, why airline security was so lax, what is the meaning of a suspicious pattern of stock transactions that occurred before the attacks, whether law enforcement efforts were subordinated to diplomatic priorities and the needs and desires of American oil companies.

Americans want the answers to two basic questions: What went wrong? And what is being done to make sure it never happens again? They should be satisfied with nothing less than an honest effort to get those answers, no matter who they embarrass, and the White House should not stand in the way.

*******

The mystery of the missing WMDs is beginning to look to me like "damage control". Does Bush think this will keep our minds off the most important question?? Until we get to the TRUTH about 9/11 and Enron, our president (sic) is literally getting away with murder. We must get him and/or Cheney to answer some questions under OATH!!

Some of my readers have asked repeatedly "What is Matilda FOR? Well, getting the truth is just one of the things I'm FOR!!! As for the rest of it, I suggest you go to the Update link on this Website and read the articles listed there, starting with the very first one written right after 9/11. Read them all.....and then come back and argue with me....if you can. Matilda

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

01:46 PM

Comments

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008

20 Lies About the War

This list was published in Great Britain. How many times have we seen something like this in our American media??? I truly do not dislike the Bush supporters, but I do feel sorry that they are so uninformed, so misinformed, and so LIED to!!! Matilda

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

04:07 PM

Comments

Just how were they lied to? President Bush did not lie when he said British intelligence said Saddam was trying to obtain materials to build nulcear bombs. The British still stand by their claim.

I think that if Saddam is still alive, he is very proud of his allies (Liberals and the media). They both continue to try and erode public confidence in Preident Bush and his attempt to free Iraq. He must be very proud that they are coming to his aid in ridding Iraq of the US led forces.

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

04:09 PM

Comments

Matilda, you claim to be FOR the TRUTH, but in fact you're just anti-bush.

Do you seriously believe that Saddam was not hiding his WMD programs? If so, then please explain his refusal to cooperate with the UN inspectors.

The partisan nonsense of the 9/11 commission has been dealt with on this board. Thomas Keane DID NOT criticize the President -- only the rabid radicals did. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent editorial on this very subject -- which I posted to this board.

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

04:29 PM

Comments

July 14, 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Intelligence Unglued

The glue that holds the Intelligence Community together is melting under the hot lights of an awakened press. If you do not act quickly, your intelligence capability will fall apart - with grave consequences for the nation.

Read this, and more, at: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16398

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

05:05 PM

Comments

This week, the Pentagon informed the 3rd Infantry Division troops in Iraq that they would not be going home on the dates previously promised. In fact they will be extended in their duty "indefinitely."

Errors of judgment and planning have been made in the Iraq operation, but I can think of no other error so grave. What this means to the average soldier, being cooked by the Iraqi summer sun under his flak jacket and helmet, is that there's no longer any schedule against which they can hope for escape.

This Baghdad hideousness, this confusion and the damned heat will go on and on. It means, further, that the U.S. government, which acclaimed them heroes a few months back, has failed in its predictions about the war and is solving the problem by leaving them there to pay for the failure.

Los Angeles Times (the url for the entire article is not available)

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

05:16 PM

Comments

This is by Paul Krugman, New York Times:

More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?

How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.

Entire article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/opinion/15KRUG.html

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

06:33 PM

Comments

The last few liberal posts prove my earlier point about liberals being the modern day "Tokyo Rose", the Japanese radio propagandist who taunted our boys in the Pacific during WW2.

We should try the liberals for treason for their attempt to soften the resolve of American troops overseas and the American people. All because of greed for power.

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

09:31 PM

Comments

OK, Matilda, I’ve got a few minutes – so let’s have some fun with your twenty questions.

1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks 2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Bush and Blair have never made this claim – although others have. We now know that several higher-ups in Al Qaida had phony Kuwaiti cv’s – planted there when Saddam was in control. We’ve also captured the Iraqi liason to Al Qaida in Pakistan.

I truly believe that Saddam was behind the anthrax attack in September of 01.

But here’s the central point: Post 9/11, if there’s even a suspicion that you’re a nation that harbors terrorists – you and all of your cohorts need to be killed. If you can’t convince me that you’re on the side of the angels, start digging some shallow graves.

Bush gets it. Nearly all of America gets it. Morons like Matilda never will.

3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme

The French apparently have hard evidence to this effect, and they’ve shared it with the Brits. Remember, the west African mines are French-run.

4. Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

This one’s still being debated – but debated OPENLY. Where’s the LIE? There’s more than a little difference between something like this and Hitler’s claim to liberating the Germans in the Sudetanland.

5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Matilda, do you ever read past the headlines? The huckleberry who wrote this for the Guardian claims that Iraq had no material with a shelf-life of more than 12 years.

Earth to Matilda, ANTHRAX lasts FOREVER. It’s an amazing organism. Even BlixyBoy admitted Iraq had never accounted for 12 THOUSAND liters of the stuff.

6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

When did Bush make these claims?

7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

Matilda, do you read anything but anti-Bush screeds? This claim was based on Iraq’s receipt of live smallpox virus from an American lab. Yeah, we used to share this stuff.

9 Previous weapons inspections had failed 10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Well, dear, if these weren’t true than why did the Security Council unanimously pass the British-American resolution last fall?

13 War would be easy

If that wasn’t easy, I don’t know what would be. This in fact is the thing that bothers you radicals the most. After months of trying to scare the world with your fantasies of hundreds of thousands of casualties – what did it take? Two weeks? What a bunch of liars and morons you are.

OBTW, the Guardian liar who wrote this piece deliberately included the misquote of General Wallace, who actually said, “The enemy we’re fighting is A BIT different … those two little words changed the meaning of the quote. What a bunch of liars and morons you are.

14 Umm Qasr 15 Basra rebellion 16 The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch

Your poor Guardian scribe is really scraping the bottom – when did Bush recite “these lies”? Oh, it was the BBC?

17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

So why did our poor bastards march in full chemical gear in the early summer heat? Oh, another Bush lie? So why do our troops love this man? And why do you think the Dims went so crazy at their joyful greeting of him when he landed on that supercarrier?

19 Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis

Matilda, why don’t you rail against the “Oil for Palaces” program run by Uday? Where do you think this money will go. Iraq will be rebuilt and the people of Iraq are infinitely better off than they were a couple of months ago. Only you frenzied radicals can’t admit it. You’d be much happier if they were still being tortured and murdered by Saddam.

20 WMD were found

I guess everybody conceals their hydrogen reactors in semis. What a bunch of morons.

Ok, Matilda, your turn. Let’s see you defend any of these IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

09:53 PM

Comments

From Andrew Sullivan:

WAIT AND SEE: My analysis of the current campaign to impugn the war against Saddam on the WMD issue is that it will fizzle out fast. My prediction is that it will boomerang against those who are busiest hyping it. Check out NBC's interview last night with David Kay, the man in charge of the WMD search:

Mr. KAY: We're finding progress reports. They also got financial rewards from Saddam Hussein by breakthroughs, indicating breakthroughs. They actually took--went to Saddam and said 'We have made this progress.' There are records, there are audiotapes of those interviews which give us that. So at this end you had the compressor.

BROKAW: Kay, a cautious professional who is well aware of the political pressure, is confident he can make the case against Saddam Hussein on WMD.

Mr. KAY: I've already seen enough to convince me, but that's not the standard. I've got to have enough to convince everyone of that. What worries me is I know if we can't explain the WMD program of Iraq we lose credibility with regard to other states like Iran, Syria and North Korea.

BROKAW: How long is that going to take?

Mr. KAY: No longer than it takes.

BROKAW: Six months?

Mr. KAY: I think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months.

BROKAW: Kay could have his first report on the search for weapons of mass destruction by early this fall.

Tom Friedman is absolutely right. All that really matters right now is that we do all we can to bring about a new, representative government in Iraq. The rest is petty politics from people who are still pissed they lost the war over the war.

Date:

07/16/03

Time:

09:58 PM

Comments

The overall war is continuing more or less as envisioned. Now that we're beginning to get established in Iraq, and now that Iraq's oilfields are coming back online and exports are beginning again, we've reached the point where we can begin to seriously confront the Saudis.

The grand strategy of a war requires pacing and preparation; you pick your fights when you're ready, and choose the sequence so as to maximize the chance of success and minimize the chance of self-immolation. In the case of the current war, one of the things which was important was to make sure that the economy of the world didn't collapse or go into serious spasms while the war was being fought.

There have been a lot of people who, for a long time now, have demanded that we cease treating the Saudis as staunch allies and friends. Saudis have been the financiers of much of international terrorism and the rise of extremist Islam around the world, and before the overall war can end that also has to end.

That's true, but if you pick a fight too soon, you can lose it. If, for instance, on September 12 Bush had identified Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Iran all as nations which he considered enemies, then they'd all have instantly allied with one another overtly. He didn't, and they didn't, and though Saudi Arabia and Syria tried to impede our war against Iraq as much as they could, they didn't succeed in saving Saddam.

And now we no longer need the Saudis. We've withdrawn our forces, and we no longer need the command center which is there. With Iraq's oilfields back online, a disruption in Saudi crude shipments (no matter why) will no longer threaten to make the world economy go into spasms. And that means we no longer have to treat them with kid gloves.

Which is why there's increasing evidence that the US is about to take a much harder line with the Saudis:

A congressional report will soon reveal close ties between residents of Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, two senior lawmakers said Sunday.

"It would be embarrassing, I think, to a lot of people there," Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

The classified report is the result of an investigation into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The report, or portions of it, is expected to be declassified soon.

"There are a lot of high people in Saudi Arabia, over the years, that have aided and abetted Osama bin Laden and his group. And they've done it through charities, they've done it directly and everything else," Shelby said. "What we've got to do is find the truth."

I think this was always on the overall plan for the war's campaign. Once Afghanistan was take care of and after Iraq had been taken, I think that it was always expected that the next step would be to apply political pressure to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria to get them to stop supporting terror groups.

Fighting terrorism is like fighting ants; there are too many of them, they're too small and too spread out. To fight ants, you don't fight the ants. You fight the queen. If you kill the queen, all the rest of the ants will die. Terrorists are small and spread out, but without money they're only a small threat at best. Terrorism is low-resource warfare but it isn't no-resource, and even organizations like al Qaeda need millions of dollars per year in order to operate. Most of that money has been coming from Saudi Arabia. If the support stops, al Qaeda will be even further impeded and its threat will be reduced even further. (And the same goes for other similar groups e.g. Hizbollah.)

The Saudis have been giving that money to those groups as a form of danegeld. "We'll give you money if you leave us alone, and go kill Jews and Americans instead, OK?" They're trying to placate both the terrorists and us, by continuing their support while making a few gestures, highly publicized but token and insignificant, to prove their support for the "War on Terrorism".

Now we're in the position of being able to apply far greater pressure on them, to let them know that we no longer need them and won't settle for token gestures on their part. Saudi Arabia has been permitted until now to straddle the fence; now they're going to have to choose sides.

The war is going well.

Stephen Beste

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

08:07 AM

Comments

Senator Byrd remarks:

"Iraq is fast becoming an urban guerilla shooting gallery with U.S. troops as the targets. It is time to go to the United Nations and work to deploy a trained multinational peacekeeping force to cope with the perils of the occupation of Iraq. Before there is a disaster to cope with. Before there is a major loss of life. Before there is a crisis, we must read the tea leaves."

Read the full remarks at:

http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_newsroom/byrd

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

08:45 AM

Comments

What Senator Byrd really said:

"America is fast becoming an urban guerilla shooting gallery with the nigra targeting us white folks. It is time to go to the United Nations and work to deploy a trained multinational peacekeeping force to cope with the perils of an integrated America. Before there is a disaster to cope with. Before there is a major loss of life. Before there is a crisis, we must read the tea leaves."

Read the full remarks at:

http://www.senate.gov/kkk/byrd_newsroom/byrd

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

09:37 AM

Comments

A presidential whodunit

The truth has been shot! Round up some unusual suspects

By Michael Kinsley

July 14 — Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation’s capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush’s State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson’s hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. (Whatever happened to that, by the way?)

WHODUNIT? WAS IT Col. Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of white-out and a felt-tipped pen?

Linguists note that the question, “Who lied in George Bush’s State of the Union speech” bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum, “Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?”…

You would think that on the question of who told a lie in a speech, evidence seen on television by millions of people around the world might count for something. Apparently not. The Bush administration borrows from Groucho: “Who are you going to believe — us or your own two eyes?

The case for the defense is a classic illustration of what lawyers call “arguing in the alternative.” The Bushies say: 1) It wasn’t really a lie; 2) someone else told the lie; and 3) the lie doesn’t matter. All these defenses are invalid…

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

09:51 AM

Comments

[Remember how I said we always pay for pollution, one way or another? It’s the same with support of the populace. If people aren’t paid a living wage, it costs us more in taxes to support them and their children. Of course, we can just let them die in the streets, and then step over the bodies. Those are the ONLY choices. So isn’t it better to put the onus on businesses, as with the costs of cleaning up pollution? If companies are forced to pay a living wage, they will build that cost into the prices of their products. And if some of those products fail, doesn’t that mean we don’t need those products? Isn’t that what the “free market” is supposed to be about?—Caro]

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

10:18 AM

Comments

Hammerhead, I'm glad your grandmother likes medicare. My too-important-to-work cousin likes unemployment while it lasts, food stamps and other government largesses too. I don't think either example makes a good case for socialism. We have seen the many failures of various socialist states, but you do not seem to learn from others' mistakes, nor from our own domestic mistakes. The former Soviet socialist states stand as examples of what happens in the "worker's paradise". Of course, I am sure you feel they only failed because they did not have the right people in charge, and that Ted Kennedy and Hillary can make it work here.

Your assignment for today: Please tell us, as an example of our own efficency at admintering socialist programs, what percentage of welfare dollars actually make it to the recipients.

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

10:25 AM

Comments

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - An 86-year-old man whose car plowed through a crowded farmers market, killing nine and injuring up to 45 others, had recently damaged his own garage with his car, police said Thursday.

Here we go again with another multiple killing. We must do something and ban these murderous vehicles, starting with the 92 Buik model he was driving. Remember, people don't kill people, cars kill people.

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

10:39 AM

Comments

Dubya's economic record since elected: The economy has lost 3 million jobs. The nation's growth rate is at a record-setting low (1.4 percent per year). The federal deficit is $3 trillion and climbing…

History shows that every Republican president since Hoover has brought economic stagnation and big federal deficits. Democrats in the White House have given us strong economic and employment growth…

G.W. Bush is living up to his Republican heritage: Shaft the middle-class, suck up to the rich, leave the nation worse off than when you took office.

Big mouth, no results. Bin Laden is still at large, even with a price of $25 million on his head. So is Hussein.

Bush misled us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; misled us about Iraq's ties to al-Qaida. He misled us about Iraq's nuclear capability, misled us about its chemical and biological weapons, misled us about the mobile chemical labs. Now he's misleading us about his deceptions.

Wake up America. Iraq and terrorists are the least of our problems.

John David Rose

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

02:45 PM

Comments

Caro], your feeble understanding of economics may partially explain your party affiliation. No doubt your definition of a "living wage" would drive businesses to cut the number of workers or pass on the costs to the customer. If you add enough "social costs" to the product, it will not be competitive, and it will fail in the marketplace, that is how the free enterprise system works.

"Those are the ONLY choices." You look at a complex problem, and your mind cannot fathom more than two simplistic solutions. This gives us some insight into your reasoning capacities.

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

03:52 PM

Comments

prummpa pum pum it's the little drummer girl tap tap tapping and a drumming with my all purpose hammer

haven't checked in lately, glad to see the trolls are still around. why you ask? oh, i have a dirty secret, i'm a troll collector!

so hideous they are almost interesting, but granted usually boring.

like the troll above talking about 'liberals'! what's a liberal? it's the all purpose troll word! trolls can't think without dividing their world into 'liberals' and others. there's an explanation for this. trolls are frustrated, deeply, and being frustrated they can't think clearly so they open their little green ears and allow the media to pour silly assumptions directly into their absorbent brain. trolls can't define 'liberals', they can only hate them! ah yes, trolls need someone to hate and blame for their frustration. they talk about the 'liberal media' and just cannot follow the arguement when people point out the nature of ownership of the mass media in the US. "Ownership?" they mutter in their troll voice, "what does that have to do with the media?" As if OWNING a company doesn't affect the product of that company! Whooeee, and they think they know something about business!!

i like the troll on this board, the one up there responding to the excellent 20 questions article, who thinks that because he RESPONDED in his fumbling trollish way to the questions that he REBUTTED the questions! Trolls are incorrigible that way.....they never can really face a logical arguement, because logic, reasoning, and evidence like the sun turn trolls to stone! they simply cannot deal with life or politics on those terms.

that is what fascinates me about trolls: their secret motivations for trolling around pretending to be passionate about political questions.

they are usally lonely men, we all know that. and they are angry because someone has made them to feel like a loser. and, because of their fear of challenging authority they cannot really look at power without bowing on their knees before the face of power. power is the god of trolls, because worshipping power makes them feel powerful themselves. so they repeat what power says.

they equate democrats with communists, which shows they know nothing about either.

one guy talks about terrorists as ants! ah, doesn't it just make a troll stand tall and feel like a big smart man when he can discuss military strategy so intelligently!

'i truly believe saddam was behind the anthrax'! what a great troll one liner! i've got to remember that one...it made me laugh out loud.

belief is the operative word. trolls need to believe in the pure morality of the most powerful. they worship at the alter of unlimited money and overwhelming physical violence. but trolls are a shameful animal, and can't face the meaining of their worship, so they have to convince themselves that they themselves are morally right, no matter how many people die in the wars they support, no matter how much poverty and suffering results from the political policies they support.

oh ye trolls! you are a goldmine of twisted psychology! keep on posting, please! you reveal yourself with every word you write! i love peering into a troll's soul, his mind, because only by doing so can i understand how mass murder still decides the rules of human society.

signed: matilda's hammer

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

05:34 PM

Comments

i like the hammerhead on this board, the one up there responding to the excellent 20 questions response, who thinks that because he RANTED in his fumbling stream-of-conciousness way to the rebuttal that he REFUTED the poster! hammerhead is incorrigible that way.....he never can really face a logical arguement, because logic, reasoning, and evidence like the sun turns the hammerhead to stone! Except he was stoned before he started! hammerhead simply cannot deal with life or politics on those terms.

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

07:09 PM

Comments

Dubya's economic record since elected: The economy has lost 3 million jobs. The nation's growth rate is at a record-setting low (1.4 percent per year). The federal deficit is $3 trillion and climbing…

AND HE TOOK OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CLINTON RECESSION AND THE END OF THE .COM BOOM, AND 3000 PEOPLE WERE MURDERED IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON ON 9/11 AND WE'VE SINCE FOUGHT AND WON TWO WARS AND THE ECONOMY IS RECOVERING NICELY, THANK YOU.

History shows that every Republican president since Hoover has brought economic stagnation and big federal deficits. Democrats in the White House have given us strong economic and employment growth…

GEE, WASN'T EISNHOWER A REPUBLICAN AND WASN'T JIMMY CARTER A DEMOCRAT? KINDA TURNS YOUR SPIN UPSIDE DOWN, DUH?

G.W. Bush is living up to his Republican heritage: Shaft the middle-class, suck up to the rich, leave the nation worse off than when you took office.

SINCE GWB IS UNLIKLY TO LEAVE OFFICE FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, TIME WILL TELL. BUT ISN'T IT THE DIMS WHO WANT TO SOAK THE RICH, GIVE SOP TO THE UNDERCLASS THEY ARE DETERMINED TO KEEP DOWNTRODDEN, AND DESTROY THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Big mouth, no results. Bin Laden is still at large, even with a price of $25 million on his head. So is Hussein.

NO RESULTS? HOW MANY ATTACKS HAVE WE SEEN ON OUR SOIL SINCE 9/11? HOW MANY TALIBAN TRAINING CAMPS ARE OPERATIONAL IN AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ? HOW MANY INNOCENTS HAS SADDAM TORTURED AND MURDERED SINCE IRAQ'S LIBERATION?

Bush misled us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; misled us about Iraq's ties to al-Qaida. He misled us about Iraq's nuclear capability, misled us about its chemical and biological weapons, misled us about the mobile chemical labs. Now he's misleading us about his deceptions.

I GUESS YOU'RE PRETTY EASILY MISLED.

Wake up America. Iraq and terrorists are the least of our problems.

WAKE UP JOHN DAVID SHMUCK. AMERICA GETS IT.

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

07:24 PM

Comments

For John David Shmuck:

Academics Say Recession Ended in November 2001

By JON HILSENRATH and MICHAEL S. DERBY Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- To many executives the economy only now seems to be gaining its footing. And to many workers, a recovery still seems far off. But the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the recession that began in March 2001 ended a long time ago. In November 2001 to be exact.

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

07:25 PM

Comments

We are $400 billion in the red. The white house and the Republicans have a solution: Add another $400 billion in medicare entitlement spending. The Democrats have a better solution: Spend even more.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

07:32 PM

Comments

More for John David Shmuck:

From the Opinion Journal -- best of the Web

Amid the current tomfoolery about claims that President Bush "lied" about Iraq, a few lonely commentators on the left are realizing that those on their side are doing themselves terrible damage by their unjustified attacks on the president. Here's Brett Sokol in Miami's "alternative" New Times newspaper:

One can be troubled by the apparent exaggeration of Iraqi intelligence reports without dismissing Hussein as a threat altogether. As Christopher Hitchens wrote recently in Slate: "To believe that the Saddam regime had nothing to hide is to believe that he threw out the U.N. inspectors in 1998 and then said to himself: 'Great. Now I can get on with my dream of unilaterally disarming Iraq!' Who can be such a fool as to believe any such thing?"

Who? Unfortunately a lot of Democrats. In fact it's getting harder to tell the party's principled liberals from the more delusional figures on the Left. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel breathlessly equates antiwar "dissidents" marching in New York with Iranian students risking their lives as they take to the streets of Tehran protesting the ayatollahs. In Fort Lauderdale, New Times's own sister paper earnestly refers to Bush's overseas "jihad" on its cover, seemingly unable to distinguish any difference between al Qaeda's terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center and the U.S. ousting of Saddam Hussein's government.

Given a choice between burying their heads in the sand or erring on the side of caution, most Americans in 2004 will opt for the candidate who recognizes the all-too-real threats facing us. John Ashcroft = Osama bin Laden? As Bush himself might say: "Don't be so melodramaculous."

Date:

07/17/03

Time:

10:11 PM

Comments

Hey Hammerless, You know, it's odd that you're not accusing Bush of lying about how brutal and vicious Saddam was.

Or maybe it isn't so odd, given how brutal and vicious Saddam actually was. The 101st has found another mass grave.

In the latest in a series of grisly discoveries, the U.S. military said Thursday it found another mass grave this one in northern Iraq and thought to contain the bodies of up to 400 Kurdish women and children slain by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division found the grave on the side of a dry riverbed in Hatra, 200 miles north of Baghdad. An assessment team was sent to the site.

Some 25 sets of remains all women and children have been pulled from the grave, each with a bullet hole in the skull. The military said the size of the area leads them to believe the site contains between 200 and 400 bodies.

Since the end of the Iraq war, at least 60 mass graves, some with hundreds of corpses, have been discovered. The United Nations is investigating the killing or disappearance of at least 300,000 Iraqis believed murdered during Saddam's regime.

There's at least one indisputable fact about the situation: the mass torture and summary executions in Iraq have stopped.

Of course, hammerhead only worries about folks richer than he -- what a bastard!

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

05:16 AM

Comments

MIXED MESSAGES No Question: The Media Is Right [16 July 2003]

by David Sirota

It used to be big news when leaders were dishonest. The media forced politicians of both parties to pay a price for even the slightest infraction. Just ask Al Gore, who was tarred and feathered for a few careless comments about the Internet. That has changed. The media now barely flinches when the truth is distorted. In just a few years, the same media that tenaciously attacked the last White House over the tiniest appearance of impropriety now barely reports when the current White House deceives, hides information and knowingly ignores hard facts.

Take the White House's explanation of the deficit. On April 24th, President Bush said, "this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." Then, a week later, he said, "we've got a deficit because we went through a recession." The White House and the media knows both of these explanations are dishonest — Bush's own budget acknowledges that his tax cuts are the major cause of the deficits (see table S-3 of Bush's budget where the White House acknowledges that without Bush's tax cuts the nation would return to surplus by 2006, but with his tax cuts deficits will continue indefinitely). Nonetheless, despite the doubletalk, the media did not report the story that the President was being dishonest.

Or how about the White House's assertion that "92 million Americans would receive an average tax cut of $1,083" under its economic plan? Again, the facts are seriously distorted in order to fool the public. In reality, 80 percent of taxpayers would receive less than $1,083, and half would receive $100 or less. The handful of millionaires who would get about $90,000 artificially inflates the average. The White House and the media know this, yet the misinformation continues unreported.

Why are these and countless other distortions swallowed by the media and fed to the American public without question?...

Note from Matilda: Where is the so-called "liberal" media we keep hearing about??????

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

06:48 AM

Comments

"Note from Matilda: Where is the so-called "liberal" media we keep hearing about??????"

Earth to Matilda: Did you forget your "twenty questions" from the day before? Wasn't that printed in a "Liberal Medium" -- The Guardian (UK)?

Oh, I get it. You forgot about it because you didn't want to rebut the rebuttal -- EVEN THOUGH YOU ISSUED A CHALLENGE TO DEBATE.

And about the tripe in your post -- You Dims keep harping about "giving money" to the rich, via tax cuts. Silly girl. TAXES take our money. SPENDING makes it disappear forever. TAX CUTS aren't SPENDING. TAX CUTS leave the people's money in their pockets. If the government later needs the money -- it can reach back into our pockets and take it then. THE MONEY IS STILL THERE.

You DIMS want to GIVE MONEY to the permanant underclass you desparately try to perpetuate so as to keep them depandant upon you so as to perpetuate your reign of power. The Republicans want to let people stand on their own feet. Equal chances for everyone -- not equal results.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

07:18 AM

Comments

From Andrew Sullivan:

THE TURNING TIDE: Tony Blair's speech yesterday was a masterpiece of concision, precision and passion. One day, someone should write a good book on how two British prime ministers, Thatcher and Blair, have come to have such high and powerful profiles in the U.S. My favorite extract from Blair's speech was the following Ciceronian paragraph:

"Can we be sure that terrorism and WMD will join together? If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in face of this menace, when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive."

This is what the carpers and nay-sayers still don't understand. The West is at war with a real and uniquely dangerous enemy. When the consequences of negligence become catastrophic, the equation of intervention changes. The burden of proof must be on those who counsel inaction rather than on those who urge an offensive, proactive battle.

Does it matter one iota, for example, if we find merely an apparatus and extensive program for building WMDs in Iraq rather than actual weapons? Or rather: given the uncertain nature of even the best intelligence, should we castigate our leaders for over-reacting to a threat or minimizing it?

Since 9/11, my answer is pretty categorical. Blair and Bush passed the test. They still do.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

07:23 AM

Comments

Hey Hammerless -- Andrew Sullivan is a neo-conservative -- someone who, while young, was a liberal, and who later in life discovered the truth. Why don't you rant about Sullivan if you can find the words.

Oh, wait. NEO-CONS are all Jews, right? You only hate people who are more successful than you. You pathetic, jealous bastard.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

07:27 AM

Comments

More from Andrew Sullivan:

Blair seems to get America. He has an amazing instinct for public mood, for what others need to hear, and yesterday, he delivered. I found his peroration intensely moving - for its clarity and for its empathy:

"We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind -- black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent -- to be free -- free to raise a family in love and hope; free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts; free not to bend your knee to any man in fear; free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for, and it's a battle worth fighting.

And I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go -- (laughter) -- I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. And our job -- my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond -- our job is to be there with you.

You're not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us."

It doesn't get much better than that, does it? The president is bloody lucky to have this prime minister. We all are.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

07:36 AM

Comments

Mark Steyn nails it:

"Intelligence is a hit-and-miss business. In 1998, when Bill Clinton launched mid-Monica cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan, he hit a Khartoum aspirin factory and missed Osama bin Laden. The claims that the aspirin factory was producing nerve gas and was an al-Qaeda front proved to be untrue.

Does that mean Clinton lied to us? I mean, apart from about Gennifer, Monica, and which part of the party of the first part's enumerated parts came into contact with part of the party of the second part's enumerated parts. Or was it just that the intelligence was lousy?

The intel bureaucracy got the Sudanese aspirin factory wrong, failed to spot 9/11 coming, and insisted it was impossible for any American to penetrate bin Laden’s network, only to have Johnnie bin Joss-Stick from hippy-dippy Marin County on a self-discovery jaunt round the region stroll into the cave and be sharing the executive latrine with the A-list jihadi within 20 minutes."

This BUSH LIED!!!!! schtick won't stick, because it's not true.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

12:42 PM

Comments

All this hullabaloo aout 16 lousy words!!!!

Can So Few Words Be All That Important? by Steve Young

July 17, 2003 -- LOS ANGELES (apj.us)

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (16 words) -- George W. Bush

Come on. What is the big deal? 16 words. What could be said in so few words that could be that remarkable? It's not like we're going to impeach someone for one lousy sentence.

"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." (10) -- Bill Clinton

After all, what are a few words when gauging the essence of a man...

"I am not a crook." (5) -- Richard M. Nixon

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

01:34 PM

Comments

In a very interesting interview on CNN just now, there was a feature which interviewed some of the troops and said that many had commented that although they'd always been Republicans, they'd never vote Republican again as long as Rumsfeld is in charge. They blame him (why not Bush, too?) for the disaster this war is turning into, all the broken promises to them, the dangerous situation they find themselves in, the awful conditions in the field, etc., etc.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

02:45 PM

Comments

To suggest that the CIA has the final word on the State of the Union Address indicates that the court- appointed president is guilty of extreme dereliction of duty.We are being asked to believe that the entire court-appointed Bush administration, noted for treating almost all inquiries as impertinent assaults on its patriarchal infallibility, was suddenly incapable of sussing out the freely available truth about an explosive allegation. This demonstrates that they are either responsible or irresponsible concerning the life and death matter of war. Either way, they are unfit to lead this country.

Matilda

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

03:13 PM

Comments

thor here, yeah, you know who i am, troll tapper they call me, i don't need to swing, just tap tap tap on the trolls stony faces and their silly attempts to defend the high crimes of bushy the fascist wushy.

so how do you know a troll? number one, they can't analyze political events. they've never learned to use their brains in that way, and so their brains have atrophied and turned to stone. that's what made them trolls! it's a common process.

what a troll does, as is shown so clearly in many of the above comments, is repeat the press secretary of bushy wushy, or, if they're really clever (sic), they'll post a Wall Street Journal editorial, or something by William Safire or George Will.

now we all know by now that VP Cheney sent a very special envoy to Niger way back in the spring of 2002 to check up on the forged uranium document. the man, former diplomat, told the story himself a few days ago in the nytimes. yeah, the guy came back and said it was a forgery and no proof in nigeria. now what did cheney do with that info? did he try to slow down the buildup for war? did he try and get more accurate info? no, he pushed HARDER for war, and Bushy too, to influence the 2002 fall elections, and get war approval from congress. he COULD have told congress about the forgery BEFORE the elections! or BEFORE the war. but he didn't. that, by itself, is a high crime against democratic government.

but cheney did something back before sept 11th we should look at. he held a secret meeting, the energy task force, and only friends like enron's cheif were invited. and what did they discuss, these oilmen and energy barons? domestic issues? certainly. it was shortly after that california got burnt for billions of dollars in a scam created by these same guys.

but, they also discussed Iraq! yep, smoking gun on that one is out in the open here http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml look at the headline:

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS

So, that's why cheney withheld those documents for so long! it took a FOI request to pry them from his greedy hands.

now, for all you sane people reading, doesn't it all make sense?

and for you trolls, ha, you guys are a joke! get some sense boys, learn how to analyze, think about context, study your history, oh it's no use, trolls like parrots are repetitive machines, especially when you tap tap tap on their heads a few times!

matilda deserves better than this, but we can all learn from every troll that visits all the ways humanity has for not thinking clearly!

signed: matilda's hammer

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

05:49 PM

Comments

Don't you think Matilda and the hummer would get tired of droning on about President Bush's non lie?

No wonder they have ideas that are rejected by the majoirty of people in the US.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

06:14 PM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

Does it warm your tummy every time you say “court appointed president”. You certainly can’t be keeping your brain above room temperature. You make two things obvious:

1. Every word you say (including “and” and “the”) is a reflection of your consuming (and completely irrational) hatred for this man and “them ‘Publicans’”. How can you expect anyone to pay any attention to you? Don’t you want to be taken seriously – or is it more important to you to play priestess to the devout?

2. You didn’t pay attention in civics class when you were a schoolgirl.

Don’t you know that the Electoral College elects the president? And if there’s a tie or a dispute, it goes to the House of Representatives? The Supreme Court has no role.

Oh, you meant that the Supremes slapped down an out of control Florida court? That Gore did everything possible to try to steal the election? That despite all that and all of the subsequent investigations, GWB actually won more votes in Florida than did Gore?

OBTW, the President spoke the literal truth in his address – go read it.

Date:

07/18/03

Time:

08:24 PM

Comments

I can't quite figure out what hammerless is ranting about now -- something about VP Cheney MAKING Congress pass the war resolution. What a moron!

Hammerhead's problem is that he can't make a decent living because of his lack of talent and he's jealous of his betters. Hence, his hatred -- especially directed at the Jews.

Why do I picture the hammer head shaven? I suspect it misshapen enuff for his self-described affliction.

Date:

07/19/03

Time:

09:58 AM

Comments

If Iraq looks increasingly worrisome on TV and in the polls, the economy is even worse. CBS found jobs and the economy dwarfing every other issue, cited by almost four times as many people as cited Iraq or the war on terrorism. On that black Thursday for the administration, first-time unemployment claims pushed the number of Americans on jobless relief to the highest level in 20 years.

And the most troubling pictures on any of the three broadcasts were those of a line of cars, stretching out of sight down a flat two-lane road in Logan, Ohio -- jobless and struggling families waiting for the twice-a-month distribution of free food by the local office of America's Second Harvest. The head of the agency said, "We are seeing a new phenomenon: Last year's food bank donors are now this year's food bank clients." Said CBS reporter Cynthia Bowers, "You could call it a line of the times, because in a growing number of American communities these days, making ends meet means waiting for a handout."

Washington Post

Date:

07/19/03

Time:

04:50 PM

Comments

"You could call it a line of the times, because in a growing number of American communities these days, making ends meet means waiting for a handout."

Nope, this also happened in the 90's, 80's, 70's, etc. There will always be poor waiting for a handout. The liberal media choose to repeatedly dwell on that in an attempt to make President look bad.

I only heard Fox report they found another mass grave in Iraq Friday with about 400 women and children - all with a single bulltet hole in the skull.

Remember, Matilda and the Hummer think the US should not have used it's power to lead and destroy that murderer.

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

08:08 AM

Comments

Note to previous poster: You're wrong!! The item says "a growing number". Under President Clinton's administration that was a decreasing number. Matilda

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

08:58 AM

Comments

White House Shows Its 'Gratitude' to Troops: Pentagon Vows to Punish any GI Who Dares Speak Out on Iraq Debacle.

By HELEN KENNEDY DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The military will punish demoralized soldiers in Iraq who are bluntly venting their frustration to reporters, the Pentagon said yesterday.

"None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense or the President of the United States," said Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command. "We're not free to do that. It's our professional code. Whatever action may be taken, whether it's a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up the commanders on the scene."

This week's abrupt cancellation of homecoming plans for the Army's 3rd Infantry Division unleashed a remarkable and widespread flood of fury from troops who are hot, homesick and hunted by guerrillas.

"If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation," Spec. Clinton Deitz of the 3rd Infantry's 2nd Brigade told ABC News.

"I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," said a 2nd Brigade sergeant. "The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz."

Many soldiers are openly asking why they are in a country that wants them out. They complain that their commanders have gone home. Frustration with the powers in Washington is a main theme.

"I can guarantee you they've never stood out in a checkpoint in the heat of the day, day after day, full battle rattle, always wondering if today's the day somebody's going to shoot me. Do they even care?" one soldier told a Knight Ridder reporter.

The 2nd Brigade, in the Persian Gulf since September, had been told it would be home by May, then July, then August. When the announcement came that the deployment was being extended until at least September and maybe beyond, "you could hear a pin drop," said Sgt. 1st Class Eric Wright of the 64th Armored Regiment.

The Code of Military Justice bars officers from using "contemptuous words" against civilian or military leaders. Punishment is rarely stringent, said military law expert Eugene Fidell.

"People always grumble in the trenches," he said. "Typically, administrations are extremely well advised not to throw gasoline on the fire by creating martyrs."

The White House took no public offense at the soldiers' gripes. "We know that they are making significant sacrifices," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are going to do everything we can to support them and get them home as soon as we can." -------------

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

11:21 AM

Comments

Earth to Matilda:

You wrote: "Note to previous poster: You're wrong!! The item says "a growing number". Under President Clinton's administration that was a decreasing number."

Whether the breadlines increased or decreased (or both) in the years 1993-2001, what did Clinton have to do with it? He inherited an ecocomy booming out of recession and delivered one back in recession. Check your facts, lady.

You know, it would be one thing if you extolled the virtues of FDR, for example. But, to hold up Clinton as an example of anything or anyone to admire (other than as an example of ruthless, blind ambition) -- you've got to be nuts.

In fact, your mindless hatred for Goeorge W. Bush suggests that you are nuts.

Why is it that we never see you criticize Clinton's desctruction of that aspirin factory in the Sudan -- or his raining death on innocents in Serbia?

Matilda, are you for anything? Or are you a mindless bigot?

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

12:10 PM

Comments

The more Bush officials try to explain how the president made the bogus uranium claim in his State of the Union address, despite the C.I.A. red flags and the State Department warning that it was "highly dubious," the more inexplicable it seems. The list of evils the administration has not unearthed keeps getting longer — Osama, Saddam, W.M.D., the anthrax terrorist — as the deficit gets bigger ($455 billion, going to $475 billion).

After 9/11, this administration had everything going for it. Republicans ruled Congress. The president had enormously high approval ratings. Yet it overreached while trying to justify the reasons for going to war.

Even when conservatives have all the marbles, they still act as if they're under siege. Now that they are under siege, it is no time for them to act as if they're losing their marbles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/opinion/20DOWD.html?th

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

12:42 PM

Comments

I quote our illustrious president, G.W. BUSH:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

What? Unless memory fails, Mr. Hussein did let the weapons inspectors in, and they had to be withdrawn for their own safety when Mr. Bush decided to bypass them and the U.N. Security Council and proceed with his invasion of Iraq. The inspectors were admitted, well-received, allowed free-range all over the country, and made regular reports back to the United Nations.

These are the words of a man who simply isn't all there. And please don't write back that I'm a Bush-hater. I'm NOT!!! At least I wouldn't be if he were simply a neighbor or a store clerk...something safe for someone of his mental level. But as the president of the United States and therefore the most powerful man in the world....with his finger on the nuclear button, I am TERRIFIED of him, for our country, MY country, and for the world, OUR world.

And if you aren't, you SHOULD BE!!!!!!! Matilda

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

12:46 PM

Comments

Ya think the NYT might be anti-GWB? Ya think?

Ya think the radicals might worry about all the egg on their faces when the administration publishes their findings on Saddam's WMD programs? Ya think?

Nah, Dims don't think.

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

01:05 PM

Comments

Matilda rants:

"What? Unless memory fails, Mr. Hussein did let the weapons inspectors in, and they had to be withdrawn for their own safety when Mr. Bush decided to bypass them and the U.N. Security Council and proceed with his invasion of Iraq. The inspectors were admitted, well-received, allowed free-range all over the country, and made regular reports back to the United Nations."

Earth to Matilda:

I don't think your memory has failed -- it's more that your irrational hatred for GWB has affected your ability to follow events.

No, the inspectors weren't given free-range (or free reign). They had "minders" every step of the way. And Blix reported back that the Iraqi's were conforming to PROCESS -- but not as to SUBSTANCE (Blix compared Iraq's lack of cooperation to that of South Africa).

The inspectors were there to VERIFY Iraq's acceptance of the UN Resolutions -- not to try to play detective and "follow the semi's" around a country the size of California.

There simply isn't a country in the world that doesn't believe Saddam had an active and clandestine WMD program, and that if he were left in power would eventually possess an atomic bomb.

Matilda adds:

"These are the words of a man who simply isn't all there. And please don't write back that I'm a Bush-hater. I'm NOT!!! At least I wouldn't be if he were simply a neighbor or a store clerk...something safe for someone of his mental level. But as the president of the United States and therefore the most powerful man in the world....with his finger on the nuclear button, I am TERRIFIED of him, for our country, MY country, and for the world, OUR world."

My dear, Bush is most certainly all there. What you see is what you get. The best predictor of what GWB will do is what he says. I know this is beyond your experience -- a president who says what he means and means what he says. And yes, you are a card carrying Bush hater. When you claim you are not -- you're lying. I suggest you read back all of your ad nauseum snipes and snides about "our court appointed president" and what you think is his unintelligence and what you think of them nasty Republicans.

You are a demented, Republican hating radical Dimocrat. You see no evil in the tired excess of your party's partisans and you see only evil in the party of ideas.

Matilda, how can you not take joy in the liberation of the Iraqis? Saddam tortured and murdered more than a MILLION people.

Oh, I forget. Your hero, Josef Stalin killed many milions more and you shed not a tear for them.

Matilda, what are you for?

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

01:53 PM

Comments

I'm still concerned for Matild'as soul. She could drop dead from old age any day now and she would have to meet her maker with such hatred for President Bush and conservatives on her soul.

No one should hate someone else that much.

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

02:00 PM

Comments

I think that Dr. Fosters death wasnt a suicide. Why would he bring his pain pills with him he wouldnt be needing them. Also, Drs know a quicker way to kill himself with a gun. Unless someone was afraid the shot would bring attention to them.

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

02:05 PM

Comments

To the extremely rude poster who is monopolizing this message board: There are a number of terms to describe people who enjoy vilifying and insulting people anonymously on the net. None of them are very pretty.

Our policy on this website has been to leave the message board uncensored in order to allow a free exchange of ideas. However, you seem bent on pushing the limits of civil discourse.

I have known Matilda for over twenty years and she is a dear friend. She is neither “nuts” nor “senile”. You should be lucky enough to be as sharp as she at age 83. I spent Friday evening at her place and asked her if your repeated insults bothered her. They don’t. So you can give it a rest.

But guess what? They do bother me (and this web site is on MY computer). Here’s Strike One, baby… Three strikes and you’re history. Your screeds are nothing but venomous invective laden with lies and fallacious conclusions. I.e. because Matilda disagrees with current White House policy, she is an apologist for Stalin. What rubbish!

By the way, “what are you for” oh esteemed anonymous one? Anyone can parrot White House talking points. When you denounce liberals as “enemies of the state” your intolerance proves you to be the “Un-American”. This great nation was founded upon dissent. Read your history. Liberal is not a four-letter-word so stop using it as such.

Kevin Lightner – letstalksense.com Webmaster

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

02:18 PM

Comments

Hammer head, you conveniently chose to ignore a couple of questions a while back, so let me remind you: I am sure you feel the "workers's paradises" in the former socialist states of Eastern Europe only failed because they did not have the right people in charge. Do you think that Ted Kennedy and Hillary can make socialism work here?

I will also repeat the question you conveniently ignored: Please tell us, as an example of our own efficency at admintering socialist programs, what percentage of welfare dollars actually make it to the welfare recipients?

Mr Hammer, please give my regards to Mrs Sickle

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

02:34 PM

Comments

Webmaster, just who are you talking about censoring? I wrote the post saying liberals are ememies of the state, but did not write the other posts you are refering to.

Maybe you just don't like the fact that other people will challenge your anti American rhetoric.

BTW, I feel that many of Matilda's posts "are nothing but venomous invective laden with lies and fallacious conclusions".

Peter

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

03:11 PM

Comments

Peter,

There is nothing Anti-American anywhere on this site.

That you would equate dissent against the policies of the Bush Administration with anti-Americanism says more about you than it does about anyone else.

Treating liberals as traitors would exclude more than half of the United States population.

Here’s some free advice for you: For an new and interesting point of view, try stepping slightly to the side of the center of the universe.

Regards, Kevin

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

03:18 PM

Comments

Thanks for the advice, Kev.

If you don't hate America, are you and Matilda in France running a webpage bashing the United States policies and President?

Why would Matilda continually say our President is an idiot?

Seems your country has some problems you both could devote your time and energy in improving.

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

06:34 PM

Comments

Dear Kevin,

I don’t think your remarks were pointed at me, but I think you should take a deep breath.

Why are you and Matilda running this board, if not to generate discussion? If you want to censor the opinions you don’t like, you’re free to do so – but I’m not sure you’ll be happy with the result. I certainly won’t bother reading or contributing.

Why do complain about the posters who are critical of Matilda, but ignore the more egregious “Matilda’s Hammer”?

I think you should let Matilda speak for herself. If she wants to challenge debate (as she has), so long as the responders don’t use those words that the FCC doesn’t like – what’s the harm? Let her speak for herself. And don’t pander nonsense such as “Matilda disagrees with current White House policy – she has an abiding hatred for George W. Bush and all Republicans and she thinks the Democrats can do no wrong.

As for you, it’s obvious that you’re an English speaking ex-pat living in France who’s in Matilda’s inner circle. I don’t know if you’re American – but I do know that you’re out of touch with us here.

We overwhelmingly like George W. Bush. And we think Bill Clinton was an abomination as President. And we are thankful that our leader will lead the free world and us and will aggressively stamp out terrorism.

This is not to say that whoever is the Democrat nominee in ’04 won’t get at least 30% of the popular vote. There are lots of people whose minds are made up and who wouldn’t benefit from a lively discussion. Are you one of them?

Date:

07/20/03

Time:

07:58 PM

Comments

Kevin rants:

Kevin, you’re a sanctimonious S.O.B filled with self importance. You also live in France. Are these two facts related? HMMMMM.

Kevin describes the posts that bothered him as “screeds”. This was the term used by Hammerless’s debunker to describe what passed for English whilst he passed gas.

Could it be that Kevin IS Matilda’s Hammer? Could it be that we’ve gotten the fool’s goat?

OBTW hotshot – I accept your challenge. Identify ONE lie in what you describe as “venomous invective”.

Date:

07/21/03

Time:

06:55 AM

Comments

I will join Kevin in decrying the use of "nuts and senile" to describe Matilda. We need to remember that she allows her site to be used freely by those of us who, like me, hold a very different (totally opposite?) political point of view.

Food for thought: would Patrick Henry have been considered unAmerican by Madison and Hamilton for being antifedralist?

Peter N (Peter Newark)

Date:

07/21/03

Time:

10:00 AM

Comments

Following 9/11, a mourning public and their congressional representatives too quickly handed the keys to the Kingdom to ideologues dedicated to killing government of, by, and for the people. If we do not waken soon from our collective daze, our descendants will surely feel a deep rage at our having given up their birthright without a struggle.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/WIL307B.html

Date:

07/21/03

Time:

01:20 PM

Comments

Recently, the scandal over the missing Iraq weapons and the Bush administration claims has focused on whether or not Iraq was trying to procure uranium "yellow cake" from Niger in order to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. The last two weeks have shown decisively that the Bush administration used manufactured evidence, which had been denounced from virtually all corners of the American intelligence community, to justify their war. The administration's explanation for this has changed by the hour - They weren't told by the CIA, and then they were told but Bush and Cheney never heard about it, but it was only sixteen words in one speech, so everybody calm down.

No one is calming down. When the President of the United States terrifies the American people in his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union speech with nuclear threats based upon evidence that was universally known to be shoddily forged garbage, no one should calm down. When he uses that terror to make war on a nation that was no threat to America, no one should calm down. When over 200 American soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians die because of this, no one should calm down. When that grisly body count rises every single day, no one should calm down.

William Rivers Pitt | The Crime and the Cover-Up http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072103A.shtml

Date:

07/21/03

Time:

06:08 PM