Date:

07/23/03

Time:

10:13 AM

Comments

Hammer head, you conveniently again 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?

Date:

07/23/03

Time:

12:13 PM

Comments

SUDDENLY, REALITY: The basic and under-reported news - of slow but measurable progress in Iraq - got a fillip yesterday with the killing of Saddam's two vile sons. Of course, no one but a few crackpots can be anything but thrilled by this news. But the best part of this event is that it focuses us back on what really matters: not quibbles over intelligence lapses months ago, but the war against terror and tyranny now. What happened yesterday will help remove the fear among some Iraqis that the Baathists might return; and so help the reconstruction immeasurably. It's wonderful news. But of course this focus - on our current progress and on how we now move from one success to another - is exactly the kind of topic the anti-war left (and right) want to avoid. It is vital to them that we forget just how evil the Saddam regime was, that we ignore the immeasurably better life Iraqis (and Afghans) now have, that we do not build on this success to take the cause to Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia. Why? Because all that will merely strengthen Bush and weakening Bush - regardless of its effects on the wider world - is the prime obsession of the antis. And his success will only legitimize the future use of American power and that again is something these types want above all to prevent. Boy, did they love those 16 banal words. How much easier to obsess on that than on the true dangers that confront us in the Middle East, the growing confluence of state terrorism and WMDs, the rise of fanatical Islamo-fascism, and on and on. Sure, some criticisms of our current strategy in Iraq are well-intended and helpful. We need more criticism of that type. But the relentless negativism and cynicism from much of the media springs from something deeper - and more fundamental.

Andrew Sullivan

Date:

07/23/03

Time:

08:10 PM

Comments

Hummer, Matilda and Lightner - must've been a bad day for you yesterday, with the killing of Saddam's 2 butcher sons and California Democrats being exposed for wanting the citizens of California to suffer so they can blame it on the Republicans.

I can't wait to see your spin on those items after you respond to the other questions you've ignored.

Maybe you all are starting to see the light. Probably not though.

Date:

07/23/03

Time:

09:44 PM

Comments

In a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, President Bush announced a $10 billion plan to strengthen the repressive powers of the federal government, in the name of waging war against "terrorism." Combined with $6.6 billion in new spending on anti-missile systems and a $110 billion increase in the Pentagon budget over the next six years, the Bush administration will launch the biggest military-police buildup since the heyday of Ronald Reagan.

In both the speech, and an interview given the previous day to the New York Times, Bush gave a picture of America in the twenty-first century beleaguered by terrorists threatening to kill millions with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, or to disrupt the US economy through attacks on its computer-based infrastructure.

"We must be ready," Bush declared, "ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services--or military assets ...

"We have to be ready for adversaries to launch attacks that could paralyze utilities and services across entire regions. We must be ready if adversaries seek to attack with weapons of mass destruction, as well. Armed with these weapons, which can be compact and inexpensive, a small band of terrorists could inflict tremendous harm."

Bush boasted that he had tripled FBI anti-terrorist efforts since 1993, and that last year the administration obtained from Congress a 39 percent increase in spending for preparedness against chemical and biological weapons. The new budget will more than double this effort to nearly $1.4 billion, including $683 million to train and equip emergency personnel in major cities, $206 million to protect federal facilities and $381 million for dealing with "nuclear emergencies."

Another $1.46 billion will be expended on measures to protect US computer systems from external or internal attack, including the formation of a "CyberCorps" of computer specialists working as an arm of the police and military. While Bush cited the threat of hackers invading Pentagon and other critical computer systems, the creation of a specialized detachment of military and police officers with computer expertise raises an obvious threat to the present relatively unrestricted access to information on the Internet....

I am sure the resident liberals, with the self proclaimed "hammer" at the front of the mob, are all jumping up and down screaming "yeah, that SOB is a threat to world peace". In fact, I took an actual story from 26 January 1999, and switched the two presidents' names (Bush and Clinton, for those at the low rungs of the IQ ladder). The above words should in truth be attributed to Bill Clinton. Before you denounce the source, be advised that I took this from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/terr-j26.shtml

Just a little test to point out hypocrisy where it may exist.

Peter Newark

P.S. I think I know the answer to the approximate fraction of welfare dollars actually making it to the recipients, but can't remember the source. Am I allowed to answer anyway?

Date:

07/24/03

Time:

08:26 AM

Comments

From Andrew Sullivan, especially for hammerless -- but of interest to Matilda and Kevin as well.

WOLFIE'S REPORT CARD: Funny thing: Paul Wolfowitz has the same impression of slow but measurable progress in Iraq as most of the informal and private emails and reports. Sure, he's biased. But he's also a brilliant and sincere man who knows how important it is to make the resuscitation of Iraq a success. Here's his assessment:

The entire south and north are impressively stable, and the center is getting better day-by-day. The public food distribution is up and running. There is no food crisis. I might point out we planned for a food crisis; fortunately, there isn't one. Hospitals nationwide are open. Doctors and nurses are at work. Medical supply convoys are escorted to and from the warehouses. We planned for a health crisis; there isn't one. Oil production has passed the 1 million barrels per day mark. We planned for the possibility of massive destruction of this resource of the Iraqi people; we didn't have to do it.

The school year has been salvaged. Schools nationwide have reopened and final exams are complete. There are local town councils in most major cities and major districts of Baghdad, and they are functioning free from Ba'athist influence.Some quagmire. He was particularly sharp onthe lack of internecine warfare.

This anecdote amazed me:

We had a very moving meeting with the members of the town council and a few other independents that had been invited. When it came the turn of one old Arab to speak, in his black robes with the classic gold embroidery and a white kaffiyeh with a black band around his head, he began to talk about how "it wasn't just the Kurds who were oppressed by Saddam; we were all oppressed by Saddam." He thanked the president and the coalition forces for their liberation, and I thought, "Okay, and now comes 'we Arabs deserve consideration as well.'" And the most extraordinary thing was, this old Arab said the Kurds were driven out of their homes, and they're entitled to their homes back. I don't know if that's representative, but it was powerful.He wasn't Pollyannish, though. Our inability to get the entire electricity grid up and running is deeply problematic; so is the security problem with contract hits being assigned by Baathist remnants. But the big picture is astonishingly good under the circumstances.

Wolfowitz was emphatic, as we should all be, about the amazing work of the troops out there, in difficult circumstances, under blistering sun and constant tension:

Everywhere I went, I found troops with heartwarming stories about the reception they had gotten from Iraqis and how wonderful it felt to get that kind of reception, and the sort of lingering doubt about "Don't folks back home get it?" -- and your colleagues might be able to help in that regard. But the thing that came through over and over and over again is, "The worst thing for us is uncertainty. If you would tell us we're going to be here for a year, we've got a job to do, it is a great job to do, it's helping Iraqi people, it's helping our country. We'd just like to have a date and work to a date."

Sounds like he listened as well. I feel more optimistic by the day.

Date:

07/24/03

Time:

08:40 AM

Comments

We Won't Back Down The real reason we're in Iraq--and why we we'll stay.

BY STEVEN DEN BESTE Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003786

Date:

07/24/03

Time:

08:53 AM

Comments

Decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush's leadership in taking us to war with Iraq.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6998&am p;news_iv_ctrl=130

Date:

07/24/03

Time:

01:43 PM

Comments

The only "fundamental question" about Dean is:

If Dean is the Democrat nominee, will he be the first "major" party candidate to lose all fifty states?

HOOOOOORAAAHHHHH for DEAN!

Date:

07/24/03

Time:

03:28 PM

Comments

Call It What It Really Is: Sick A Nation of Assassins By DOUGLAS VALENTINE

What do you call it when George W. Bush, without provocation and based on false pretenses, sends an army to invade a foreign nation; and then, without any attempt to negotiate a surrender, effect an arrest, or put this nation's leaders on trial and present evidence of their crimes, instead puts multimillion dollar bounties on their heads, relies on collaborators and spies to track them down, and then corners them and blows them away in their homes, in their own country?

Do you call it what the Israelis, who lately have done it hundreds of times, call it?

A targeted kill?

What would you call it if Saddam Hussein hunted down and killed George Bush's daughters in Texas?

Cold-blooded murder?

How about calling this sort of behavior assassination?

Why call it anything? A rose by any other name, right?

And don't even ask if targeted kills, cold blooded murders, and assassinations are legal or moral. Who the hell cares?

They're popular. It's so much fun, you can even find death cards on the Internet, naming the people that Bush plans to kill in Iraq. It's like a videogame, or that old Steve McQueen show, Wanted Dead or Alive.

Bush really gets into it too; "Bring 'em on," he said, playing the role of Paladin in Have Gun Will Travel; and since then a couple of GIs have gotten killed every day. But what the hell, it's a volunteer army, and it isn't you or me. So they die for Bush's vainglory. Who cares? It's the vicarious thrill that counts.

Back when the CIA was assassinating foreign leaders all over the world, in the 1950s, '60s, and 70s, they secretly liked to call it Executive Action. Those were the bad old days, when the CIA had to secretly go about its dirty business of mass murder. Back then they had to resort to euphemisms to get the job done.

In the Republic of Vietnam, first the CIA called the mass murder of its enemies, in their own country, elimination. But that sounded too harsh, so it changed the term to neutralize.

In 1967 the CIA created the infamous Phoenix Program to neutralize -- which meant to hunt down through informants and then kill, capture, torture and detain indefinitely -- a revolving annual door of some 70,000 members of Communist and Nationalist insurgents, and anyone supporting them politically or administratively, in their own country.

The United States government admits that the CIA killed some 25,000 people through the Phoenix Program. It did successfully and gleefully neutralize some hundreds of thousands altogether. They know how to do it and they're ready to cast the Phoenix spell worldwide.

Now we have it from Richard Perle -- one of the corrupt Zionist cabal that rules the White House, and makes Israeli policy American policy in cahoots with the Bush oil régime, whose loyalty lies not to the American public but to its own self-enrichment -- that America will not leave Iraq as long as some 30,000 members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, in Perle's words, remain active.

So now maybe they're gonna change the term to inactivating?

By inactivating, Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz and the other members of their criminal régime mean the planned mass murder of some 30,000 Iraqis in Iraq. If they do it the way they did it in Vietnam, just like Bob Kerrey's little mission in Thanh Phong, they also plan to inactivate the families and friends of these 30,000 people.

You can't terrorize insurgents into submission unless you do it this way, as the Israelis have taught us so well. You have to terrorize everyone. Just like the Israelis terrorized the Palestinians into a state of submission.

The newspaper and TV commentators applaud this Iraqi experiment in targeted kills and mass murder as boosting the morale of the American occupation army.

Just today the headlines hailed the inactivating of Saddam Hussein sons as a righteous act that was more than merely morally justifiable, but something akin to Divine justice.

And no one is astounded, because the vast majority of Americans were ethically inactivated a long time ago, through 50 years of government propaganda. In order to enjoy their SUVs and cell phones, they will rejoice while George W. Bush, in his role as God Almighty, cuts a swath of righteous savagery through the world, mass murdering everyone he and the Zionist cabal designate as their personal enemies -- just like George W. Bush, all by his little lonesome, tried convicted and sentenced Saddam Hussein and his family to death, and then went out and killed them.

From now on, Bush alone chooses who lives or dies, and no one can stop him. It is the One Commandment that the American empire is based upon. And that's how we have become a nation of assassins, void of conscience.

Call it Apotheosis by the Divine Right of Execution. Or call it what it really is: sick.

Douglas Valentine is the author of The Hotel Tacloban, The Phoenix Program, and TDY. His new book The Strength of the Wolf: the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1930-1968 will be published by Verso. Valentine was an investigator for Pepper on the King case in 1998-1999. For information about Valentine and his books and articles, please visit his website at www.douglasvalentine.com.

He can be reached at: redspruce@attbi.com

Date:

07/24/03

Time:

06:52 PM

Comments

Call Douglas Valentine what he really is: A sick, anti-Semitic bastard.

I guess the previous post was placed by hammerless – it seems to echo his bilious bombasts: “Richard Perle -- one of the corrupt Zionist cabal that rules the White House,”

Of course, President Bush can’t be as he seems – he just can’t be that smar (because we sick lefties have determined he’s a dullard – and we’re so damned smart it makes us sick). It must be the JEWS who make GWB LOOK smart! Of Course! Of Course!

What a bunch of morons you are. What are you going to say on the day after election day next year? BWWWWAAAAAHHH!

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

05:04 AM

Comments

Did you notice the groundswell of support in Congress for legalizing drug imports from Canada? This is an idiotic way to do the right thing. Drug prices are cheaper up north not because manufacturing costs are lower there but because the Canadian national health program controls drug company prices and profits.

Congress doesn't need a detour via Canada. It just needs to do the right thing directly. Regulate drug prices, and Americans will save not just money on their prescriptions but on needless shipping charges, too. No need to punish the local drugstore just because Congress lacks the nerve to do this reform properly.

Boston Globe

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

07:46 AM

Comments

Look, it's not MY fault there are all these whackos out there doing shit and saying I told them to do it. Cut me some slack, okay? It's tough being the Son of God. Here I am trying to get people to do the things I did when I was alive--minister to the sick, help the poor, comfort the dying, and otherwise make the world a nicer place to live in--and thanks to Dad's whole "free will" thing there are a whole bunch of assholes out there who are, well, being assholes and saying I told them to be assholes. If any of those people bothered to look at my history or read the Gospels, they'd realize that I'm a big Jewish hippie peacenik who likes hanging out with the dregs of society. Knowing them, if I showed up on their doorsteps, they'd turn me into that John Ashcroft guy, and he'd crucify me again. And people wonder why I don't come back? You try spending hours tied up to a cross with nails through your feet and hands, suffocating to death. It's a rotten way to go. No wonder Dad let me into heaven. But, I digress. Let me just say that for the record I never told George W. Bush to bomb Iraq; I never told Deion Sanders he should only pay $1500 for his car repairs; I have nothing to do with the athletic skill and performance of any athletes (although Dad and I appreciate the friendly gestures after they hit a home-run or score a touchdown); I do not hate "fags"--despite what that shriveled up old prick Fred Phelps thinks; I do not spend even a nanosecond of time telling Bill Frist that he should murder cats. If there are people doing nasty things and saying that I told them to do it, they are lying. In the meantime, if you have any complaints about any so-called "followers" doing evil, nasty, stupid or otherwise incomprehensible things in my name, I must ask that you take it up with them. I'm really busy these days trying to stop a radical right wing apocalypse from happening and I'm negotiating with Dad on how best to deal with George W. Bush in a way that doesn't violate the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing.

Thanks. Regards, Jesus

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

08:43 AM

Comments

To the poster claiming to have quoted the Boston Globe:

I have a hard time believing that even a NYT owned newspaper could print something that stupid. I looked at their online site – it isn’t on their 7/25 edition’s editorial pages.

But, let’s assume it was printed and that you believe it’s a WONDERFUL idea – here’s the problem: If government tried to limit the price manufacturer’s could charge for their products there would be less incentive for the same manufacturers to develop better products. We all would suffer. The pipeline for the development of new wonder drugs to cure our ills would dry up. Is this what you want?

Managed economies don’t work very well – look at the failure of communism. Capitalism may be painful at times, but it provides the most goods and services at the lowest cost.

Even the idea of importing drugs from Canada (or elsewhere) is idiotic. Do you seriously think the manufacturers would continue to sell their products more cheaply in Canada if in so doing they would lose their pricing power in the US? Of course not. All this would accomplish would be to deny Canadians their free ride on US R&D.

Hey! That’s not a bad idea. Yeah, let’s permit the importation of prescription drugs from Canada so as to force our northern neighbors to pay their fair share.

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

01:20 PM

Comments

Lunchtime munchtime time to drop in on let's talk sense, where the most boring conservative trolls on the internet hang out....well howdy boys good to see ya, lapping up those gruesome photos are you? hmmm, just what trolls love for supper! they eat propaganda like kids eat cornflakes! yum yum

yep matilda's hammer here tapping round the net while i munch a tofu commie salad.

hey, found some scientific backup for my psycho analysis of conservative trolls: link: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

So, they obey and worship authority because they're afraid! Makes sense to me.

One troll above just can't shut up about socialism and welfare! Read some history dude, socialism has never existed, what the commies had is termed 'state capitalism': rigid hierarchy, no independent unions, tons of propaganda, an elite controlling the means of production....hey, sounds like the U.S.A.!

I agree, in the US welfare is expensive and inefficient: look how much blood and money it takes a day to subsidize the oil industry!

Here's a troll quote: "Managed economies don’t work very well – look at the failure of communism."

Let's see, the biggest managed economy in the world today is the U.S. 'defense' budget! And it works great! Every Fortune 500 company is dependent on that economy for it's R and D budget!

You trolls are proof that Edward Bernays was right!

Who was Edward Bernays? Ah, do some research, I'm off for a few hours work, then it's the weekend again, but I promise I'll return and tap tap tap the rigid troll faces til they rage and rant and rave and rend and roar! That's the sound i love to hear! bring 'em on!

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

03:27 PM

Comments

Murder Most Foul

By Israel Shamir

05/25/03: War is crime, but this is the manly crime defying effeminate mores and rigid society. The most convinced pacifist can be carried away by the sight of charging cavalry, attacking troops, roaring tanks and fighter jets taking off a desert strip. Not in vain, women admired warriors, poets sung their mighty deeds, and priests anointed their heads. We can fetch a Roman adage or a Koranic verse, a line from Shakespeare or Nietzsche to praise a leader of men and disregard the costs of war. We can forgive a bloodshed, it's sordid affairs that can't ever be forgiven.

Murder of the deposed Arab ruler's young sons is the ultimate sordid crime of President Bush. It transformed him from a fool into a villain, from the dubious vanquisher of a disarmed state into a vile murderer, from a deceiver into a bloody crook, from the vainglorious chieftain on board of the aircraft carrier into a vicious monster. Whatever we think of Saddam Hussein, cynical and cruel murder of his sons is an abysmal collapse into archaic mode. This is worse than Napoleon's murder of young Duc d'Enghien, worse than the crimes of Richard III. Stalin and Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt killed millions, but they did not hunt down children of their adversaries.

If the president would tear their noble hearts and gobble them dripping blood on his starched shirt he would not be more disgusting. It is a moral collapse of the ruling class: his schools, Harvard and Yale, once aristocratic breeding ground of American gentlemen, reached moral nadir under the guidance of Lawrence Summers the Platitudinous, Samuel Huntington the Trivial, Leo Strauss the Godless and Alan Dershowitz the Torturer. Probably Sing Sing would produce a more suitable ruling class at lesser cost.

It is a moral collapse of the army. Hundreds of heavily armed American soldiers who participated in the execution brought shame on themselves and the Armed Forces. Copycatting the Israeli assassins, they shot missiles at unprotected men. They are not soldiers anymore, their place is with hangmen. Their cowardly deed will delegate them into lower recesses of Hell, within a shouting distance from Judas.

It is a moral collapse of the media. This docile tool of Empire stepped into moral abyss beyond the cowardly murder. TV pundits discussed price of blood in dollars and shekels, they argued whether the murder will put paid to the Iraqi resistance. The TV screens were turned into stakes posting the bloodied heads of two handsome young men, a scary sight, but even scarier was the joyous crowd of brokers and investors at Wall Street, celebrating the Dow Jones' rise by guzzling Arab blood. It was not the first vicious murder in mankind's history; but the first one met with equanimity; a bloody sacrifice to Mammon. The healing spasm of moral disgust did not shake the sick society.

The dead and torn body of the fourteen-year-old boy, a grandchild of Saddam Hussein, will haunt Bush whenever he looks at his own children and grandchildren, like Banquo's bloody ghost on Macbeth's feast. Indeed, the Texan killer of Hussein's sons is but a remorseless replica of the Scottish murderer of Macduff's sons.

In a Christian land he would be excommunicated, for a vengeful murderer of his enemies' children has no place in Kingdom of Christ. Not in vain he befriended Sharon and Perle who are used to laud murder of Haman's children at the feast of Purim.

Noble and brave, the sons of Saddam Hussein did not escape to a faraway land; they did not pocket billions for surrender, they did not lounge in Minsk or Riyadh as the dishonest mainstream media suggested. The Young Lions of Baghdad, they fought the superior forces of aggressor, and fell defending their homeland. Kusai and Udai were together in their lives; and in their death they were not divided. They will be forever cherished in the collective memory of mankind, with other tragic and courageous fighters against the Empire from Vercingetorix the Gaul to the Sioux chief Sitting Bull, from Che Guevara of Santa Clara to Abdel Kader al Husseini of Qastal.

Their last stand and their death redeemed Iraq and returned self esteem to the Arabs. They died in flesh but remained alive in spirit; their murderers are but living dead. When the Middle East will regain its independence, their names will be written on the precious porphyry of our monuments.

Israel Shamir is an Israeli journalist based in Jaffa. His articles can be found on the site www.israelshamir.net In order to subscribe to this list please send blank email to shamireaders-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

04:35 PM

Comments

Hey, progress. Hammerless has discovered how to capitalize the first word in (some of) his sentences. He’s getting almost readable. Of course, he still spews nonsense, but give credit where credit is due.

As to the rest of his trope – more mindlessness. Hammerless discovered the silly “study” done – at government expense – that seeks to equate conservativism with fascism. Of course, hammerless fell for it.

Hammerless also tells us that “the biggest managed economy in the world today is the U.S. 'defense' budget!” He honestly can’t distinguish between an expense line and and an economy – managed or not!

Hammerless also thinks that the entire research efforts of the US economy -- or at least the 500 largest corporations (in sales) are funded by DARPA. What a moron! I’ll bet he’s never even read Fortune Magazine.

Hammerless is what we call “a loser”. He can’t make the kind of living his over inflated sense of self worth entitles him to so he’s angry at those who achieve more than he.

To the poster of the piece by Israel Shamir – don’t you think the link would have been sufficient? It is awfully repetitive.

Anyway, it’s obvious that Mr. Shamir didn’t avail himself of any facts – Uday et al were in fact asked to surrender and in fact the sons of Saddam initiated the shooting.

In the end, this was testament to their stupidity. Imagine, opening fire on the US army? What morons!

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

06:49 PM

Comments

Hey Hamerless, try commenting on this piece by Andrew Sullivan:

CHENEY FIGHTS BACK: It was good to see the papers take Dick Cheney's AEI speech yesterday seriously. They all but ignored Paul Wolfowitz's superb briefing the day before. And what Cheney does is address something very fundamental to the argument. Here's the money section:

"The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy, but those who do so have an obligation to answer this question: How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?

Last October, the director of Central Intelligence issued a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's continuing programs of weapons of mass destruction. That document contained the consensus judgments of the intelligence community, based upon the best information available about the Iraqi threat. The NIE declared, quote, "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade," end quote.

Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information or trying to wish it away would be irresponsible in the extreme.How can one disagree?

The problem with the critics is that they ignore the context and the impossibility of complete certainty in intelligence. But given that NIE assessment, given what we found out on September 11, what would we have expected the government to do? If they over-estimated the WMD capacity of Saddam, it was surely a better option than under-estimating it. Yes, war is and was a grave decision. But war against the monster in Baghdad was always far more morally defensible than war against almost any other regime on the planet.

I have no problem whatever with tough criticism of the intelligence we had before the war, or the uses to which it was put. But I still have found no clear evidence that the administration acted in bad faith, or that the end-result is anything but a boon to our security, the security of the entire world, and to the poor Iraqi people, terrorized for generations. The president should get back on the offensive, and show how his opponents would have left this country more vulnerable than any responsible government can or should tolerate.

Date:

07/25/03

Time:

07:12 PM

Comments

Don't be fooled, America is having success against terror by Charles Krauthammer, July 25, 2003

WASHINGTON--Amid the general media and Democratic frenzy over Niger yellowcake, it is Bill Clinton who injected a note of sanity. ``What happened, often happens,'' Clinton told Larry King. ``There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it ... British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, `Well, we probably shouldn't have said that.'''

Big deal. End of story. End of scandal.

The fact that the Democrats and the media can't seem to let go of it, however, is testimony to their need (and ability) to change the subject. From what? From the moral and strategic realities of Iraq. The moral reality finally burst through the yellowcake fog with the death of the Hussein Brothers, psychopathic torturers who would today be running Iraq if not for the policy enunciated by President Bush in that very same State of the Union address.

That moral reality is a little hard for the left to explain, given the fact that it parades as the guardian of human rights and all-around general decency, and rallied millions to try to prevent the very policy that liberated Iraq from Uday and Qusay's reign of terror.

Then there are the strategic realities. Consider what has happened in the Near East since Sept. 11, 2001:

(1) In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been overthrown and a decent government installed.

(2) In Iraq, the Saddam regime has been overthrown, the dynasty destroyed, and the possibility for a civilized form of governance exists for the first time in 30 years.

(3) In Iran, with dictatorships toppled to the east (Afghanistan) and the west (Iraq), popular resistance to the dictatorship of the mullahs has intensified.

(4) In Pakistan, once the sponsor and chief supporter of the Taliban, the government radically reversed course and became a leading American ally in the war on terror.

(5) In Saudi Arabia, where the presence of U.S. troops near the holy cities of Mecca and Medina deeply inflamed relations with many Muslims, the American military is leaving -- not in retreat or with apology, but because it is no longer needed to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam.

(6) Yemen, totally unhelpful to the United States after the attack on the USS Cole, has started cooperating in the war on terror.

(7) In the small stable Gulf states, new alliances with the United States have been established.

(8) Kuwait's future is secure, the threat from Saddam having been eliminated.

(9) Jordan is secure, no longer having Iraq's tank armies and radical nationalist influence at its back.

(10) Syria has gone quiet, closing terrorist offices in Damascus and downplaying its traditional anti-Americanism.

(11) Lebanon's southern frontier is quiet for the first time in years, as Hezbollah, reading the new strategic situation, has stopped cross-border attacks into Israel.

(12) Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have been restarted, a truce declared, and a fledgling Palestinian leadership established that might actually be prepared to make a real peace with Israel.

That's every country from the Khyber Pass to the Mediterranean Sea. Everywhere you look, the forces of moderation have been strengthened. This is a huge strategic advance not just for the region but for the world, because this region in its decades-long stagnation has incubated the world's most virulent anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic and anti-modernist fanaticism.

This is not to say that the Near East has been forever transformed. It is only to say that because of American resolution and action, there is a historic possibility for such a transformation.

It all hinges, however, on success in Iraq. On America not being driven out of Iraq the way it was driven out of Lebanon and Somalia -- which is what every terrorist and every terrorist state wants to see happen. And with everything at stake, what is the left doing? Everything it can to undermine the enterprise. By implying both that it was launched fraudulently (see yellowcake, above) and, alternately, that it has ensnared us in a hopeless quagmire.

Yes, the cost is great. The number of soldiers killed is relatively very small, but every death is painful and every life uniquely valuable. But remember that just yesterday we lost 3,000 lives in one day. And if this region is not transformed, on some future day we will lose 300,000.

The lives of those as yet unknown 300,000 hinge now on success in Iraq. If we win the peace and leave behind a decent democratic society, enjoying, as it does today, the freest press and speech in the entire Arab world, it will revolutionize the region. And if we leave in failure, the whole region will fall back into chaos, and worse.

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

06:49 AM

Comments

Shamir's article amazes me. He and other liberals like to refer to Saddam's sons are his children or his boys (to portray them as innocents). They should refer to them as the vile murderers they were. They were responsible for the murder, maiming, rape and torture of thousands of Iraqis.

These monsters were hunted down and rather than give themselves up, resisted arrest and fought back. We killed them.

I saw it reported today that some Muslims were angry about the way the bodies were treated (groomed, photographed, autopsied and not buried by sundown). I say we should have placed their heads on posts in town center for everyone to see.

Maybe when we catch Saddam himself.

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

07:13 AM

Comments

<A HREF="http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html">Click here: Why I'm voting for Kucinich over Dean </A> http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

This is a very interesting site which compares Kucinich and Dean, by a journalist who right now supports Kucinich but would vote for Dean "in a heartbeat" if he gets the nomination. He's just making the point that Dean isn't as progressive as some people seem to think. He has put a lot of work into this site, including the tables comparing their stands on the key issues. I'd have pasted the chart here, but the data all runs together when I try to do that. I really recommend that progressives go to the link and check it out.

Margie

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

07:18 AM

Comments

House Majority Leader Tom Delay's speech:

"Fear and Loathing in the Mother Ship"

too long to post, so here's a snippet:

Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: “Bonjour!”

I'm sure you've already heard a good many speakers today and will hear a bunch more after I'm done.

So you'll probably judge my speech more on its brevity than its persuasiveness.

But that's okay, because as you may have heard, we Republicans from Texas aren't known for our el-o-qua-city.

But we are known for being clear.

So in the interests of clarity, I have a simple message to pass along: the national Democrat party seems to have lost its marbles.

Though they remain a potent electoral machine, armed with battalions of trial lawyers and entertainers, and their Grand Coalition of the Perpetually Partisan, they are no longer a serious force in the national debate.

Their single organizing philosophy is an irrational, all-encompassing, broiling hatred of George W. Bush.

They hate him for a million reasons.

But most of all, Democrats hate the president because on every political issue of significance since he came into office, he has beaten them like rented mules.

It gets BETTER: http://www.majorityleader.gov/news.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=127

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

07:29 AM

Comments

Hammer, you pompous buffoon. Since you quote from the UC Berzerkeley newsCenter for your "psycho analysis of conservative trolls", here are a few other gems from this "impartial" source:

Study links extreme weather, poverty and witch killings

Can money buy happiness? UC Berkeley researchers find surprising answers In a capitalistic society, people generally believe that being rich is better. But two UC Berkeley researchers have found that isn't always the case, especially if you value your work because it's fulfilling and not because it offers a high income. (?!?!?! Who paid for THAT study?)

White-collar criminal to speak April 16 about business ethics

UC Berkeley economists urge California legislature to accept tax increases and revisit Prop. 13

My last post was wrtten after reading a Socialist web site, and I would suggest you could learn a lot by diversifying your sources of information. To study the enemy, may I suggest http://www.opinionjournal.com/ for starters? You could learn more than you think by reading sites that may seem ideologically repulsive, but you do not come across as someone who can diverge from his weltanschauung long enough to do so.

"Read some history dude, socialism has never existed, what the commies had is termed 'state capitalism" - Interesting take on things. Since you appear to favor government intervention, control and regulation, you probably feel that the failure was due to the "capitalism" rather than the "state" part. It would seem that socialism has not failed because the wrong people were in charge, but rather because you were not in charge.

"socialism has never existed"?????????

Peter N

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. --Winston Churchill

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

07:33 AM

Comments

Another excellent column from Victor Davis Hanson, dissecting the anti-American media “groupspeak” that finds a cloud in every silver lining:

War Folklore: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson072503.asp

These are still perilous times. But if anyone on September 12, 2001, had predicted that 22 months later there would still be no repeat of 9/11; that bin Laden would be either quiet, dead, or in hiding; that al Qaeda would be dispersed, the Taliban gone, and the likes of a Mr. Karzai in Kabul; that Saddam Hussein would be out of power, his sons dead, and an Iraqi national council emerging in his place; that troops would be leaving Saudi Arabia, Arafat ostracized, and Sharon seeking negotiations; that new Middle East agreements under discussion — and all at a cost of fewer than 300 American lives — then he would surely have been written off as a madman.

All that and more were no mere accidents. They were the direct result of the work of thousands of brave and astute Americans who were as likely to be slurred during their risky ordeal as they were to be third-guessed in its successful aftermath — and predictably by the same opportunistic bystanders.

So far we have lost fewer lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than we did in a single day's butchery in the Marine barracks in Lebanon. But unlike that terrible sacrifice, this time Americans are fighting back, winning, and changing for the better the lives of millions in the most remarkable, ambitious, and risky endeavor since the end of World War II.

We need to remember all of that, and get a grip on ourselves amid the latest outbreak of what we can now diagnose as a chronic and embarrassing hysteria Americana.

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

10:36 AM

Comments

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW"

The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

10:37 AM

Comments

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW"

The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

03:06 PM

Comments

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW" - QUICK, before democracy comes to Iraq! Hurry, we have to find something to cavil about.

The war has gone far too well. The truth is coming out. The American public won't be deceived by our lies about the Bush administration. It is apparent that the administration is both honest and competent.

Many Americans who voted for Gore in the last election do not want our troops there -- lest their success underscore how much better off we are with Bush in the White House. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do want US troops there and are thrilled that Saddam is gone.

Date:

07/26/03

Time:

03:52 PM

Comments

Bush says "Bring 'em on."

The French say, "BRING THEM HOME NOW".

That's the difference between winners and those that surrender when things gets a little rough.

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

08:26 AM

Comments

Bring them home now has a picture in the upper right hand corner that I remembered from recent news. I believe it was taken after a car bomb was detonated to try to kill Americans, but instead killed and maimed several Iraqi children. The soldier was distraught at the sight of children blown to bits. That picture says much about the site: by all means let's "bring them home" so the Baathists can have free rein to wreak more of that kind of havoc on children, as they had for years. We were deceived by Mr Clinton during the Balkan war, where were these hyocrites then?

Here is a link to a well reasoned discourse from a first year student at Columbia University that discusses various sides of the problem without the usual hysterics.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/22/3ea4c587740c6

Peter N

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

09:53 AM

Comments

The following information contrasts the administration's assertions with what the administration has actually done: You truly owe it to yourself to read it most carefully. EVERYTHING in it is clearly documented. Matilda

Howard Dean to Bush: "It's Time for the Truth." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072703B.shtml

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

10:21 AM

Comments

Well Matilda, Dean's quote:

"By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. "

Pretty much shows his colors. President Bush did not mislead us, why do the liberals keep harping on it. You think if you say it enough it will be true. Dean stating this proves to me he is not a capable leader.

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

11:52 AM

Comments

Newsflash:

US controls France for 5th year in a row as Lance Armstrong wins his 5th Tour de France.

Thanks Lance for a victory, especially this year.

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

12:00 PM

Comments

I expect the sound of the US national anthem playing over the Champs Elysees sounded pretty sweet in America.

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

12:11 PM

Comments

For Matilda – ok, I’ll go through some of Dean’s “documentation” for you – since you don’t seem capable of doing it for yourself – even with Kevin’s help.

ECONOMY Assertion: President Bush: "Government cannot manage or control the economy." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003) Truth: George W. Bush's administration cannot manage or control the economy.

Huh? Is Dean in favor of a “managed” economy? Do you wonder why many people think the American Communist Party has co-opted the Democrat Party?

Assertion: "This budget . . . is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth [and] to generate jobs" (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002) Truth: Since January 2001, over three million jobs have been lost. (WSJ, 7/24/03)

In fact the economy IS picking up steam – as promised. Isn’t that a fine kettle of fish?

Assertion: ". . . [O]ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term." (President Bush, State of the Union address, 1/28/2003) Truth: "... by 2013 the deficit will reach $530 billion or 3.0 of Gross Domestic product, equivalent to $2,300 for each household in America. In addition, such a policy of amassing ever greater debt over the next decade will cause the cost of annual interest payments on the debt to soar to $425 billion a year by 2013. . ." (CBPP, $300 Billion Deficits, As Far as the Eye Can See,

Is Dean predicting what our economy will look like in 2013? 2013? 2013? Go back an look at the long term projections for the deficit when Clinton took office in ’91? NOONE can make a credible prediction more than two years out!

7/8/2003) Assertion: "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage growth." (President Bush, Western Michigan University remarks, 3/27/2001) Truth: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% (NYT, 6/27/03)

And? Are we not emerging from Clinton’s recession? Won’t tax relief provide the basis for a sustained recovery? Not if a Democrat gains the White House!

Assertion: "Now, you hear talk about deficits. And I'm concerned about deficits. I'm sure you are as well. But this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003) Truth: The CBPP reports, "Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism--including the action in Afghanistan--are counted as 'war costs,' along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq." (Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 8 July 2003)

Earth to Dimocrats – Tax Cuts don’t cost ANYTHING! The money remains in the peoples’ pockets. If the government really needs this money , the government can reach in and take it! You Dimocrats continually confuse taxing and spending – because it’s all you’re capable of doing.

Assertion: "The minute I got sworn in, we were in a recession. And that's why I went to Congress for a tax package." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003) Truth: Bush was inaugurated in January 2001; the recession began in March 2001. He did not inherit a recession. Moreover, the tax package he took to Congress was the same one on which he had campaigned. (National Bureau of Economic Research; Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 7/8/2003)

This one’s a beaut! Is this supposed to be another of what you Dim’s call Bush’s lies? Is Dean claiming that Bush did not inherit Clinton’s recession? No, he’s quibbling with “the minute” – and you Dims want this guy to be our President?

Assertion: "The growth and jobs plan I outlined earlier this year will provide critical momentum to our economic recovery. For every American paying income taxes, I propose speeding up the tax cuts already approved by the Congress." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003) Truth: Ten recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science said Bush's plan would not provide a short-term boost and would create long-term budget deficits. Franco Modigliani (MIT), who received the Nobel in 1985, called Bush's plan "preposterous." Daniel McFadden, the 2000 recipient, described the plan as a "weapon of mass destruction aimed at the middle class." (Blanton, The Boston Globe, 2/12/2003)

So why is the economy picking up steam? For a good look at what happens when the Dimocrats run the asylum – gaze at the fiasco in California. In truth, the rest of the nation is doing pretty well, CA pulls the overall numbers way down. And what do the Dim’s propose to do about it – they want to create an artificial crisis to “punish” the electorate (until they realized their microphone was left ON).

Assertion: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (President Bush, Radio Address, 4/26/2003) Truth: "Analysis shows that 8.1 million lower and middle-income taxpayers, who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes, will receive no tax reduction under the legislation." (Robert Greenstein, CBPP, 6/1/2003)

This is a blatant falsehood! ALL tax brackets are reduced. Note the weasel wording, “no tax reduction” – He didn’t say “no INCOME tax reduction”. What a bunch of liars you Dims are!

Assertion: "We have priorities at home as well--restoring health to our economy above all. Our economy had begun to weaken over a year before September 11th, but the terrorist attack dealt it another severe blow. This budget advances a bipartisan economic recovery plan that provides much more than greater unemployment benefits: it is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth, to generate jobs, and to give unemployed Americans the dignity and security of a paycheck instead of an unemployment check." (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002) Truth: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% and 1.2% of mortgages were in foreclosure, setting a record high. The unemployment rate climbed to a nine-year high of 6.4% in June. Setting a new record, 1.6 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy last year. (NYT, 6/27/03; USA Today, 7/10/03; WSJ 7/24/03; U.S. News & World Report; 7/21/03)

And? Is Dean saying we shouldn’t reduce the tax burden to spur the economy – or that we ought to be doing more of this?

Assertion: In his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said, "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations." Truth: The White House released a deficit projection in July, 2003 of $455 billion. (Source: "White House Sees a 455 Billion Gap in the 03 Budget" New York Times David E. Rosenbaum 7/16/03)

Is Bush not preparing us for future prosperity by reducing our tax burden?

I could go on, but let’s see Matilda or her hummer try to rebut what I’ve said. STOP MINDLESSLY REPEATING THE SOPHISTRY OF OTHERS. Let’s see one of you speak for yourselves.

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

04:24 PM

Comments

Message to those of my gentle readers who reply to almost everything I post with vile name calling and unsubstantiated declarations.....I invite and implore you to go to the Update link of this website and read Harry Truman's speech entitled "What it means to be a Democrat." These words were spoken back in 1948 when Truman was running against Dewey, Governor of New York, who had oodles of money and the American media behind him. PS Truman got elected!!!!!!! Matilda

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

06:10 PM

Comments

I don't think the previous poster replied with "vile name calling and unsubstantiated declarations", now did he?

Matilda, are you near Paris? Did you go and show your pride of being an American and sing along with the National anthem after Lance Armstrong won today?

Do you claim to be a US Citizen to others in France?

Date:

07/27/03

Time:

07:13 PM

Comments

Matilda, what a Democrat WAS in 1948 is NOTHING like what a Democrat IS today. Forget the segrataion forever Dixiecrats (and your favorite Senator, Robert Byrd who HATES the Nigra!) -- In 1948 the Democrats had IDEAS. They stood for something.

All of that's gone -- probably with JFK. In fact, JFK would be a neo-con, today.

The "modern" Democrat party is soley concerned with getting itself elected. It has long since sold its soul to the splinter groups. The Democrats are devoid of ideas and of any moral underpinnings.

Matilda, what do you think the Democrats stand for? (what do you stand for)?

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

06:02 AM

Comments

Blame rightly belongs to Bush himself, and to his woefully inadequate national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Either they knew the uranium story was false, or they were unfit for high office.

For one thing, uranium ore is no more threatening than cake mix.

To weaponize it, ore must be laboriously transformed into uranium hexafluoride gas, then separated and enriched in huge, highly visible plants, equipped with "cascades" of thousands of high-speed centrifuges.

The U.S. knew there were no such nuclear plants in Iraq. French intelligence warned it the Niger story was bogus.

Nor had Iraq any means of delivering nuclear or biowarfare weapons. In short, Iraq had zero offensive capability, and posed zero threat.

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

06:48 AM

Comments

Forget that the president of the United States betrayed a nation, that his staff allegedly destroyed a CIA agent specializing in the tracking of WMDS by outing her for revenge and intimidation, that lies have become the coin of discourse for this administration, that a Congressional report (even one censored by the White House) implies that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel in trying to prevent an Al-Qaeda attack -- forget all this. What Americans need is a grisly shot of the bad guys -- a la the famous photo of a dead John Dillinger -- laid out on autopsy tables, their bodies crisscrossed with stitches like a beggar's blanket.

Read more at: http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub2

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

06:59 AM

Comments

“Blame rightly belongs to Bush himself, and to his woefully inadequate national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Either they knew the uranium story was false, or they were unfit for high office. “

Blame for what? This is what our President said in his State of the Union Address.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

What part of it was or is untrue?

As to the rest of your silliness:

Gas centrifuges are only the most efficient means to physically separate the uranium isotopes. Iraq previously had made large scale use of calutrons – a fact only discovered accidentally during the Gulf War of ’91.

Indeed, every intelligence service in the world KNEW that Saddam was determined to gain an atomic weapon – including the French. Indeed, the Brits relied on information passed onto them by the French for their assertion stated above – not the bogus Niger documents (the French run the uranium mines in west Africa).

No threat to the US? In fact your hero, Bill Clinton declared just the opposite and Congress so declared in 1998.

What planet do you live on?

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

08:19 AM

Comments

French intelligence warned it the Niger story was bogus.

"French intelligence"? Is that a contradiction?

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

09:44 AM

Comments

http://amconmag.com/07_28_03/buchanan.html

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

10:43 AM

Comments

On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the administration of using classification to ''disguise and keep from the American people ineptitude and incompetence, which was a contributing factor toward Sept. 11.''

He said there might be parts that would compromise sources or methods of intelligence-gathering, ''but it would be a sentence or a paragraph, not 28 pages.''

AP

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

11:11 AM

Comments

ooh it's monday, working, time for a quick coffee break, check in on the trolls on let's talk sense...ah, one has named himself!!!! peter n. himself. peter n., man you one silly kookie dude, thinkin you can go up against the hammer without any larning in you, shoot, why don't you do some reading first!

socialism, that's when da workers control the means of production, simple as that. now if you go and study the ruskie revolution you'll see that lenin the bolshi, just like bushy wushy, did everything to silence opposition to the bolshi party from day one of power, including shutting down the workers councils. that's what happened, historical fact. lenin died and it got worse, and workers NEVER controlled the means of production in the soviet union, ergo, no socialism. get it pete? hey don't believe me, crack a book every once in a while.

you trolls who criticise 'managed economy' while praising the US economy remind me of the guy who ordered a hot dog and they brought him one and said 'here's your frankfurter sir' and he said 'no! i wanted a hot dog!', so they went back to the kitchen, came back with the same plate and said 'here's your hot dog' and he was delighted. or as shakeybakeyspereo said 'a rose by any other name is still a purty flower dang nabbit!'.

the pentagon is a huge managed economy, they got newspapers, grocery stores, fleets of cars, you name it, and they get their goods from other managed economies, you think GM and Boeing are not managed economies! they are just as hierarchical and planned as stalin's auto factories I assure you! most of their imports and exports are in house, from one division to another.

the difference in the states is that the bolsheviks created huge undemocratic corporations to oppress the workers while in the soviet union they created huge undemocratic corporations and called them government agencies.

the US is a managed economy, what do you think Alan Greenspan does? Is he elected? Heck, the Federal Reserve can make the economy do yo yo's, but that is not managed, eh? tell that to wall street next time the Fed meets and they wait with bated breath for the announcements of the high priest greenspan.

ah, I'm out of my league when i mess with the trolls on this message board. why don't you guys call up your big brother or something and give me a challenge.

and lastly the guy who keeps saying this statement is not a lie:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Let's see now, if I had a car to sell you without an engine, and I knew it didn't have an engine, but I had a piece of paper from my neighbor Mr. Jones saying the car had an engine (though Mr. Jones also knew the car didn't have an engine) and I said to you "Please buy this reliable car which my good neighbor Mr. Jones says has a beautiful engine!" and you trusted me and bought the car because of my 16 words, are you telling me you silly thick troll that you would not consider that a lie on my part! Whoooeeee, you are living proof that PT Barnum was the world's greatest psychologist!

oops, tap tap tap, matilda's hammer must go back to work

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

12:40 PM

Comments

Paul Gigot, a journalist has an article in the 7/28 Wall Street Journal titled, "This was a good thing to do".

It's too long to post here, but if Matilda, Kevin or the Hummer has access to it. You should read it.

One paragraph, " Most reporting from Iraq suggests that the US 'occupation' isn't welcome here. But following Wolfowitz around the country I found precisely the opposite to be true. The majority aren't worried that we'll stay too long; they are petrified that we will leave too soon. Traumatized by 35 years of Saddam's terror, they fear we'll lose our nerve as casualties mount and leave them once again to the Baath's Party's merciless revenge."

It also touches on the morale of the soldiers (not as reported in the liberal press).

Probalby wasting my time. Hummer, Kein and Matilda would rather read from http://www.berkeley.edu/news

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

08:46 PM

Comments

Hummer, you really are an ignoramus (“socialism, that's when da workers control the means of production, simple as that.”). The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS."

MANY nations have experimented with socialism – none successfully (of course).

And comparing Bush to Lenin? How many thousands of his citizens has Bush murdered? None, you say? What a moron you are, hummer.

Again, you confuse a government department (Defense) with an “economy”. Hummer, did you actually attend school? No wonder you can’t get a decent job.

“in the states is that the Bolsheviks [sic] created huge undemocratic corporations to oppress the workers…” Hummer, have you ever met an “oppressed worker”? (Other than yourself).

“what do you think Alan Greenspan does?” What do you think he does, Hummer? He sets the PRICE of money (mostly the discount rate). The Feds job is to manage the money SUPPLY – not “manage the economy”. Hummer, have you no shame? If I were as stupid as you I’d keep my mouth shut!

Date:

07/28/03

Time:

08:56 PM

Comments

No Apologies The Iraq War Was Well Worth It

July 27, 2003, Sunday Times. copyright © 2003, 2003 Andrew Sullivan

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

07:06 AM

Comments

Hammerhead,

You get credit for being consistent. You blame the failure of the socialist experiments on the leaders. "...including shutting down the workers councils. that's what happened, historical fact. lenin died and it got worse, and workers NEVER controlled the means of production in the soviet union.." It appears you condemn the execution, not the guiding principle. There have been many other attempts to build a "worker's paradise". It does you no good to "crack a book" if you learn nothing from history. If your busy schedule as President and majority member of the Hammer Fan Club allows, you may want to read more current history. Hugo Chavez is still busy trying to build a socialist "worker's paradise" in South America, with less than stellar results so far. If it fails, no doubt you will find the "wrong people were in charge".

Of note that Chavez is now saying that his enemies are trying to kill him ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030728/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela ). Either Hillary is one of his advisors or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has expanded to South America.

Pete

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

09:05 AM

Comments

July 28, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

Was Poppy Right After All? by Pat Buchanan

After five weeks of air strikes and 100 hours of ground war, President Bush ordered General Schwarzkopf to end his attacks and halt his advance. Receiving reports of air massacres of retreating Iraqis on the Highway of Death out of Kuwait City, unwilling to risk a defection of his Arab allies, Bush I ordered an end to the war.

America agreed. Our goal had been to liberate Kuwait. It had been achieved, brilliantly. Saddam’s army had been evicted. The 500,000-man army of Desert Storm was ordered home. And the neoconservatives never forgave Bush I for not going to Baghdad.

A dozen years later, the son, at their fanatical urging, invaded Iraq, seized Baghdad, and committed America to building a democracy that would serve as a model for the Arab and Islamic world.

Three months have now elapsed since Baghdad fell. In those 100 days, the wisdom of the father in disregarding the neocons, and the folly of the son in heeding them, have become apparent.

America has 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq as proconsul Paul Bremer is demanding thousands more to put down a guerrilla revolt that has broken out against our occupation.

Each day brings reports of new American dead and wounded. Our enemies are said to be terrorists, Saddam’s Fedayeen, the remnants of the Ba’ath Party. But Saddam had hundreds of thousands of men in his army, Republican Guard, and Special Republican Guard. We did not kill a tenth of these soldiers. Where are they now?

George W. Bush is in more trouble than he realizes. Indeed, his place in history may yet hinge on how he deals with what Americans are coming to see as an intolerable cost in lives to maintain a presence in Iraq when they are not yet convinced it is vital to our security.

The president spent a year convincing us of the ominous threat of Saddam—his weapons and ties to terrorists—a threat that could be eliminated only by an invasion and the death of his regime. But he has not even begun to make the case for why we must stay on in Iraq.

Why are we still there? If our goal is a democracy in Iraq, that is surely noble, but is it doable? What is the price in blood of achieving it? What is the cost in tens of billions? What are the prospects for success? What would constitute indices of failure, at which point we would write off the investment? What is our exit strategy?

None of these questions has been answered. What we hear from the president is “Bring ’em on,” and from senators who visit Baghdad, “We must be prepared to stay five or ten years.” But why must we be prepared to stay five or ten years? Now that Saddam is gone and his weapons of mass destruction no longer threaten us, if ever they did, why must we stay?

Iraq is not Vietnam where we lost 150 soldiers each week for seven years. But it has taken on the aspect of the colonial wars of the European empires, all of which were lost because the natives were more willing to pay in blood to drive the imperialists out than the imperialists were willing to pay in blood to stay around.

The truism stands: the guerrillas win if they do not lose. And they do not lose as long as they keep fighting, dying, killing, and raising the cost of the occupation. British, French, Israelis, and Russians can testify to that.

Americans sense, rightly, that we do not need to occupy Iraq to be secure here at home.

Bush’s father understood this. Is the son wiser? Why did Bush I stop at Basra and not go on to Baghdad? He had no desire to occupy and rule Iraq. He saw no need to. He feared that a U.S. occupation would alienate Arab allies, inflame the Arab street, and invite an Iraqi intifada. He placed a high value on the coalition he had stitched together to fight, and to pay for, the war. He was warned Iraq could split apart and a Shi’ite south sympathetic to Iran could break loose. He did not see a routed Saddam as a mortal threat. He believed Iraq could be deterred, contained.

On this, he was a conservative. Has not history proven him right?

His son, however—to invade and occupy Iraq and oust Saddam—was willing to shatter alliances, alienate Arabs, Turks, French, Germans, and Russians, have his country pay the full cost of the war, and run the entire occupation ourselves. Now, U.S. casualties, after the fall of Baghdad, are approaching the number of lives lost in the war.

Looking back, were Saddam’s weapons so imminent a menace they required an invasion? Or did the neocons get revenge on the father by leading his son down the garden path—to the empire of their dreams, now creaking at the joints?

What does the son do now, with the election 15 months away?

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

09:20 AM

Comments

DECEPTION WITHOUT OUTRIGHT LYING

In his February address, Bush said: ''People with the smallest incomes will get the highest percentage reductions.'' The literally true assertion hid that the tax cut provided little help for most people and that the big winners were the top 1 percent of the taxpayers.

Tax-savings calculations under the Bush proposal made at the time indicated that a young childless couple earning $20,000 would have its taxes reduced by 41 percent. A middle-aged couple with $1 million in earnings would receive a 15 percent reduction. Just as Bush said, the lower-income couple had its taxes cut by a much larger percentage than the wealthy couple.

But Bush's Big Lie covered up that the young couple would save $410 in taxes, or about $34 a month; the older couple would benefit by $47,114, or about $3,900 a month. The wealthier couple's tax savings would amount to over twice as much as the other couple's total annual income. Suggesting that lower-income families fared better than the wealthiest ones surely qualifies as world-class deception.

HERALD

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

01:42 PM

Comments

''People with the smallest incomes will get the highest percentage reductions.''

That is a true statement. Period. Why try to add to it and imply what was meant?

Only so liberals can undermine the United States so they can try to acheive power.

Speaking of the mounting death toll in Iraq. While even a single death is tragic, let's look at the big picture:

On a daily basis, on average, 10 Americans die by drowning, and nine Americans die by fire in their homes. 14 Americans die by pedestrian accidents. 27 Americans die in falls. On average, 50 Americans a day are murdered. 118 die in auto accidents, and 25 people die from A.I.D.S. every day, on average.

On average less than one American has died per day since this campaign began.

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

01:57 PM

Comments

To keep things in perspective, # Battle and non Battle Deaths with Casualty percent:

Civil 591K (18%) WW II 416K (2.5%) WW I 116K (2.4%) Vietnam 58K (1.9%) Korea 55K (1.0%) Revolutionary 24K (11%) War of 1812 2K (0.8%) Persian Gulf War 1991 148 235 (0.08%) War against Terrorism/Afghanistan thru 4/2003 *2002 64 (0.03%) Iraq War 2003 132 (0.04%)

Sometimes good people die bringing about good change. All the time the liberal press and democrats will distort the truth to play political games.

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

03:00 PM

Comments

Taaap a taaaap a taaaap, yawwwwn, the trolls put me to sleep, gosh one is so lazy he quotes rush lamebrain limbah the chickenhawk who ran away from patriotic duty becuase of anal cysts! (see http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html)

rush is showing his solidarity to the troops by showing how many more people die every day in accidents! that, my friends, more than anything shows a trolls level of reasoning ability, as well as their moral flatulence.

well, now I wonder how the soldiers families will enjoy Rush telling them not to complain about their loved ones being killed for oil since after all, accidents happen everyday. nothing a troll likes better than a chickenhawk! it's obvious the trolls on this board have never done a day of military service!

but not only are they cowards and hypocrites like their patron saint rush, they are too lazy to find out the meaning of basic political and historical terms like 'socialism' and 'democracy'. it's all getting tiring, it's like arguing with slaves under the roman empire who justified their slavery by quoting nero, these trolls have been so brainwashed they worship the master by repeating the masters justifications for their slavery, so predictable, so lame, well, enjoy your slavery!

go home trolls and get some backup, you guys have committed the gravest of sins, you're BORING!!!

and don't come back until you learn about edward bernays! and for extra credit, tell me what year the federal reserve was created and why! (ah, that's too much for a troll, ok, you trolls who cannot analyze (99.9%) have an easier question: who is Valerie Plame?)

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

03:54 PM

Comments

Funny, Hummer and liberals on this page can quote from leftwing sources, but cry foul when someone quotes from a right wing source.

Typical hippocrite.

Then he makes up facts that Rush will tell people not to complain about people being killed and that they are being killed for oil.

Doesn't it get tiring hummer? Isn't it time for you liberals to start trying to scare old people into voting against President Bush?

I know hummer likes the sound of that - "President Bush".

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

06:21 PM

Comments

Hey Matilda and Kevin et al! Want to know what the mainstream Dems think of your efforts?

From Best of the Web on the Opinion Journal:

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council has seen better days, that's for sure. Having plumped for Bill Clinton in the early 1990s, it's now out of sync with the party's increasingly bitter mood. The New York Times reports from Philadelphia, where the council just wrapped up a conference, where members fretted over Howard Dean's popularity:

"It is our belief that the Democratic Party has an important choice to make: Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?" said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, chairman of the organization. "The administration is being run by the far right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left."

When a reporter asked a panel of council leaders whether Democratic woes were a result of Republican attacks or Democratic mistakes, Senator Bayh responded with a curt two-word answer that silenced the room.

"Assisted suicide," he said.

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

06:45 PM

Comments

For Matilda, news about France that you won't get in France:

"French President Jacques Chirac, making his first visit to Polynesia since ordering a final round of nuclear tests in the South Pacific in 1995, on Saturday defended the decades of testing that some islanders claimed gave them cancer," the Associated Press reports from Papeete, Tahiti:

Chirac, making a five-day visit to the French territory of Tahiti, said the atomic tests that generated international outrage helped establish France as a world power.

"Without Polynesia, France would not be the great power that it is, capable of expressing in the concert of nations an autonomous, independent and respected position," he said.

And so what if a few island-dwellers got cancer?

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports from Paris that France and Germany are belatedly considering how they can help in Iraq. "One senior French official" tells the paper: "The French Army would feel humiliated to go to Iraq and be put in the same category as the Poles or the Uruguayans as part of the cleanup team."

Does French arrogance know any bounds?

The Associated Press reports that "the number of American tourists visiting France has dropped dramatically this year, by as much as 80 percent in the first half of 2003." The reason? France's Tourism Ministry attributes the decline "mainly to the weak dollar." Yeah, that must be it.

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

08:18 PM

Comments

THE PRO-WAR LEFT: Check out this terrific and eloquent blog by one Norman Geras, a Marxist who rejects the blanket anti-Western orthodoxy now prevalent on the British and American left. Read this whole post. Money quote about the Left's current predicament:

"When the war began a division of opinion was soon evident amongst its opponents, between those who wanted a speedy outcome - in other words, a victory for the coalition forces, for that is all a speedy outcome could realistically have meant - and those who did not. These latter preferred that the Coalition forces should suffer reverses, get bogged down, and you know the story: stalemate, quagmire, Stalingrad scenario in Baghdad, and so forth, leading to a US and British withdrawal.

But what these critics of the war thereby wished for was a spectacular triumph for the regime in Baghdad, since that is what a withdrawal would have been. So much for solidarity with the victims of oppression, for commitment to democratic values and basic human rights.

Similarly today, with all those who seem so to relish every new difficulty, every set-back for US forces: what they align themselves with is a future of prolonged hardship and suffering for the Iraqi people, whether via an actual rather than imagined quagmire, a ruinous civil war, or the return (out of either) of some new and ghastly political tyranny; rather than a rapid stabilization and democratization of the country, promising its inhabitants an early prospect of national normalization. That is caring more to have been right than for a decent outcome for the people of this long unfortunate country.

Such impulses have displayed themselves very widely across left and liberal opinion in recent months. Why? For some, because what the US government and its allies do, whatever they do, has to be opposed - and opposed however thuggish and benighted the forces which this threatens to put your anti-war critic into close company with. For some, because of an uncontrollable animus towards George Bush and his administration. For some, because of a one-eyed perspective on international legality and its relation to issues of international justice and morality.

Whatever the case or the combination, it has produced a calamitous compromise of the core values of socialism, or liberalism or both, on the part of thousands of people who claim attachment to them. You have to go back to the apologias for, and fellow-travelling with, the crimes of Stalinism to find as shameful a moral failure of liberal and left opinion as in the wrong-headed - and too often, in the circumstances, sickeningly smug - opposition to the freeing of the Iraqi people from one of the foulest regimes on the planet.

Yes. Their record is almost as bad as the Communists of the 1930s. Worse, actually. They cannot even point to another evil to justify their de facto support for tyranny.

Andrew Sulivan

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

10:56 PM

Comments

Doesn't the liberals claim to be the compassionate party? Now they are the ones to make fun of other people's physical misfortunes. Sad, they have to stoop to new lows.

Refering Rush Limbaugh's painful physical congenital defect:

"And a pilonidal cyst was indeed a legitimately disqualifying condition:

According to the Military Entrance Processing Command, a pilonidal cyst was then and is today a so-called "disqualifying condition" for induction. It's a congenital incomplete closure of the neural groove at the base of the spinal cord in which excess tissue and hair may collect and cause discomfort and discharge. The malady can be corrected by surgery, but short of that it is viewed by the military as a needless risk amid unsanitary conditions in the field.2

Date:

07/29/03

Time:

10:56 PM

Comments

Maybe they can make fun of someone with a cleft lip and palate or Down's syndrome next.

Date:

07/30/03

Time:

11:30 AM

Comments

For the Hummer

Like I'm psychologically disturbed Cal Thomas

July 29, 2003

Liberal denial about all things conservative has passed the bizarre and arrived at the absurd.

The American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin has published a study of why conservatives are the way they are. The study was conducted by four researchers, who, according to a press release from the University of California at Berkeley's (UCB) media relations office, "culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism." (Two of the researchers are professors at UCB, which apparently remains imprisoned in '60s dysfunctionality.) The researchers conclude that conservatives suffer from a disease or malady that makes them think the way they do.

"At the core of political conservatism," says the press release about the study, "is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality." Well, yes, conservatives are resistant to change for the sake of change, believing that certain ideas about life, relationships and morality are true for all time regardless of the times.

Some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism, according to the study, include fear and aggression; dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management.

On this last point, the researchers wrote that post-9/11 many conservatives "appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views." Conservatives would like to do more than punish "outsiders" if they come to our nation in order to do harm to us who are inside. They would like to keep them from getting here in the first place and arrest or expel those who make it through with plans to kill us.

Most conservatives welcome "outsiders" so long as they are seeking to become insiders - that is, Americans - and not to undermine our way of life.

A second "key dimension of conservatism," says the UCB press release about the study, is "an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.)."

Get it? Conservatism equals racism, xenophobia and all sorts of other unappealing traits. In case the point is not clear, the press release says the researchers put some familiar faces on those they consider to be conservative icons: "Hitler, Mussolini and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form." The authors commented in a published reply to the article that "talk show host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way."

The researchers must have missed the name of Hitler's political party, the National Socialists (emphasis mine). There is nothing "conservative" about his beliefs. Eliminating the unwanted is a liberal position, as in abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. That some of the world's greatest modern tyrants are linked to Reagan and Limbaugh tells us much about the political leanings of the authors.

What amazes about this "research" is the incredible bias against anything regarded as conservative. There is the presumption that no conservative idea is even worth considering and that to be conservative is to be psychologically disturbed. These guys seem to think conservatism is a dormant affliction, ready to break out into a plague at any moment.

This is a view held by most liberals, although they express it in different ways. Anyone who does not subscribe to the liberal catechism is, by definition, flawed and sick and something to be "studied," like Joseph Mengele "studied" Jews,