Let's Talk Sense Archives - August 10-20, 2003

Message board comments
from August 11 to August 20 2003

Date:: 08/01/03
Time:: 04:52 AM

Comments

Messages from August 1 through August 10, 2003 have been archived. To view these messages click here.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 04:20 AM

Comments

Excerpt of a speech by William Rivers Pitt:

" This is the Project for a New American Century, the product of a right-wing think tank that, in 1997, was considered so far out there that no one ever thought its members would ever come within ten miles of setting American policy. One broken election, however, vaulted these men into positions of unspeakable power. Their white papers, their dreams of empire at the point of the sword, have become our national nightmare, and the nightmare of the world. I speak of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Lewis Libby, and the rest of these New American Century men who have taken our beloved country and all it stands for it and thrown it down into the mud.

You will note that I did not name George W. Bush, for blaming Bush for the gross misadministration of this government is like blaming Mickey Mouse when Disney screws up. He is not in charge. Truman said "The buck stops here," and so we point to Bush as a symbol of all that has gone wrong. But he is not in charge. These other men, these New American Century men, have delivered us to this wretched estate, and by God in Heaven, there will be a reckoning for it."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081003A.shtml

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 05:39 AM

Comments

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,

'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails

An unprecedented internet campaign waged on the frontline and in the US is exposing the real risks for troops in Iraq. Paul Harris and Jonathan Franklin report on rising fears that the conflict is now a desert Vietnam.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 05:51 AM

Comments

Defiant Soldiers Sending Dispatches from the Front.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0805-09.htm

The War According to David Hackworth The retired Colonel calls Donald Rumsfeld an "asshole" whose bad planning mired U.S. troops in an ugly guerrilla conflict in Iraq. His sources? Defiant soldiers sending dispatches from the front."

This eye-opening article will break your heart. Matilda

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 07:05 AM

Comments

Some heartening advice:

"Do not focus on what is wrong and unmended. We will meet great people who will hail us, love us and guide us. Ours is not the task of fixing the entire world all at once, but of stretching out to mend the part of the world that is within our reach. Any small, calm thing that one can do to help another, to assist some portion of this poor suffering world, will help immensely. It is not given to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip toward an enduring good. We know that it does not take "everyone on Earth" to bring justice and peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the first, second or hundredth gale."

C. P. Estes

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 07:17 AM

Comments

Liberals on this page would gain credibility if they would quote other sources than the same tired radical left wing "Truth out" and the "Guardian" web pages. I'd stay away from the NY Times too.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 01:16 PM

Comments

a hammering i will go a hammering i will go to israel and back whack whack whack! a hammering i will go!

hey, good to see the trolls still snorting out lies from their fatty lips, using the bush techniques of repeated lies to try and fool the good readers of lets talk sense! why, how dare they! they don't know the meanings of basic political words like 'socialism', 'democracy', and they are so plain dumb they think the new york times is a liberal rag! what fun it is to read their rants....anyway, i love to be called antisemitic! yeah, throw me in that briar patch you evil ol troll! is that all you can think up?

hey, new book about the technique of attention diversion from Israeli and neo con crimes by the smear of 'antisemitic', it's here: The Politics Of Anti-Semitism by Alexander Cockburn (Editor), Jeffrey St. Clair (Editor) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1902593774/and more: A Trilogy of Dysfunction: When the Bully Whines By HANAN ASHRAWI Exclusion and a unique type of racism were recently exhibited by the Israeli Knesset in its mad drive to create a "Palestinian-free" society in Israel.

The Bill preventing Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens (mainly Arabs) from acquiring Israeli citizenship or permanent residency was passed by a majority of 53 votes to 25.

The tragic humanitarian consequences of such legislation would tear apart whole families and lead to tremendous hardships of displacement and loss of domicile.

More significantly, the mentality of racism and outright discrimination (the law does not apply to Israelis who marry non-Palestinians) is quite ominous for Israel as a state and for future relations between the two states: Israel and Palestine.

Along with the snaking path of the apartheid wall, the sinister plans of Effie Eitam, the Israeli minister of housing from the National Religious Party, to increase settlements in East Jerusalem and achieve a "demographic" shift in the occupied city complete the racist circle.

Had these phenomena taken place elsewhere, and had the "marriage bill" been passed by any other country to exclude a specific minority, the world would have been in an uproar. link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4386.htm

and more

Views of the Israeli Apartheid Wall http://www.pengon.org/wall/photos1a.html

great video

Q & A With CIA Analyst Stephen Pelletiere The coaltion: Exposing the lies: Who killed the Kurds? Israel's part in a US invasion of Iraq. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm

Has A Right-Wing Zionist Cabal Hijacked The White House? Is the tail wagging the dog? William Bowles 08/05/03. An essay by Stephen J. Sniegoski ‘The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel,' poses the idea that US foreign policy is controlled by a ‘cabal’ of right-wing Zionists, who have effectively hijacked the White House in pursuit of a ‘Greater Israel.’ The essay written in February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq proposes,

"[T]he idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security, which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem."

It further proposes the idea that 9/11 was used as a pretext to launch a final onslaught on the Palestinians, the Arab nations of the Middle East plus Iran, and in doing so, produce a ‘final solution’ to the Palestinian question. This ‘solution’ could be effected if the Middle East entered what one Zionist ideologue refers to as "revolutionary times" such as that presented by the (fortuitous) attack on the WTC.

Sniegoski is proposing that the right-wing Zionist clique headed by Richard Perle, the ‘Prince of Darkness,’ have taken over the Bush administration, mainly because Dubya is too stupid to know any better:

"In order to directly influence White House policy, Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as "the Vulcans." Having no direct experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes — confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as "Grecians," and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders — George W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors."

links: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc2.htm http

How neo-cons influence the Pentagon ... By Jim Lobe 08/08/03: (Asia Times) WASHINGTON - An ad hoc office under US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith appears to have acted as the key base for an informal network of mostly neo-conservative political appointees that circumvented normal inter-agency channels to lead the push for war against Iraq. links: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4392.htm http://www.ahherald.com/readers_write/2003/030807_anti_semitism.htm

and more:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1024.htm "Further, Zionist elements in the American ruling establishment have always sought to direct the United States against the ‘terrorist’ states, which are, not coincidentally, the enemies of Israel. Certainly, that - - which has had its tentacles in both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations - has long talked of taking a tougher line toward Iran and Iraq, as well as giving greater support to Israel’s war on ‘terrorists.’"

The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote,

It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1] Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests?

To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel.

and more

Reporting On Israel A comparison of how the New York Times and Le Monde reported the vote of the Knesset blocking citizenship for Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens By Mark Jensen http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4325.htm 08/02/03: It's interesting to compare how Le Monde and the New York Times reported the story about the Knesset voting on July 31, 2003, to make it impossible for Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens to obtain Israeli citizenship. (Both stories are appended below.)

more!

Our foppish self-righteousness By Shulamit Aloni http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4282.htm 07/30/03: (Haaretz.) Since the start of the intifada, more than 800 Israelis, mostly civilians, have been killed by Palestinians. We, justifiably, call it "murder." Some were killed by suicide bombers and the rest with other instruments of death. At the same time, more than 2,200 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis - some as armed suspects, and almost all from soldiers' fire. We don't call these casualties "murdered."

Or maybe we are a greedy occupier, looting their land (at least as far as they are concerned), uprooting, and demolishing, and expelling, and breaking into their homes. And still, we aren't an enemy; and still, we think it's an enlightened occupation; and our chief of staff is doing everything he can to sear into the consciousness of the occupied that they should love the occupier who holds them prisoners in their homes until they are hungry, until they are completely humiliated - and all for the sake of getting them to finally understand who are the masters of the land and who are the servants.

Everything I've written here is known by everyone, but forbidden to state aloud because it is not patriotic. After all, everything we are doing is so our enemies won't bring another Holocaust down upon us. That's how it is explained to us - over and over again.

more!!!!

'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'

On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army. Chris McGreal investigates a shocking series of deaths. By Chris McGreal http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4269.htm

and howard dean and the zionists!

A Tale of Two Democrats Dean Knows the Road to the Presidency Runs Through AIPAC HQ http://www.antiwar.com/gancarski/gan080803.html Many quotes in the Forward article are worthy of examination; here are a few. Howard Dean refers to himself as an "internationalist" who accepts "AIPAC's view" of foreign affairs. As President, Dean would endeavor to "bring democracy and freedom to Muslim nations". Those endeavors, one would expect, would be influenced greatly by "AIPAC's view", as Dean feels a "visceral" attachment to Israel.

"Dean spoke with the Forward shortly after naming Steven Grossman, a former head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and ex-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to a top campaign fundraising post." Dean told the Forward that he was "traveling to Israel for a week at the end of [November] with the American Israel Educational Foundation, AIPAC's educational arm, to meet with Israeli officials and Arab leaders."

A cynic might suggest that former long shot candidate Dean's collaboration with AIPAC – indeed, his aggressive courting of the lobby's support – enhanced his national visibility more than any other position he's taken. "In order for him to be totally credible to the Jewish community in issues, people will want to see a well-developed foreign policy on Israel and the Middle East and be supportive of Israel's effort to maintain its qualitative edge," Grossman said to The Forward. "He will have to address this and no doubt will. Based on private conversations I am absolutely confident about where he is ideologically and substantively in bringing him to the American Jewish community."

and israeli connection with 911!!!!

Fox News Series on Israeli Spying in the US

Original Link: http://www.firefox.1accesshost.com/cameron.html

December 2001 In mid December, Fox News Channel ran a blockbuster series on Israeli spying in the US contending that Israeli intelligence had advanced information about the Sept. 11 attacks before the fact.

After significant pressure, Fox pulled the reports from their Website and went about deleting all references to the series of their's and other Websites. Fox has never given any explanation for this action.

The original transcripts which appeared on Fox's Website are reprinted here.

The series was presented the investigative reporter Carl Cameron and presented on Special Report with Brit Hume. In December of 2001, Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, who did a four-part series exposing the enormity of Israel's spy apparatus in the U.S., flatly stated:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

http://propagandamatrix.com/fox_news_series_on_israeli_spying_in_the_us.html

Comments

I think we should give thanks to the Hummer for finally exposing his biases. He just treated us to several thousand words about how everything that happens in this world is as result of a massive Jewish plot – including killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds and blaming it on Saddam!

Is it no wonder that Hummer and Matilda find themselves to be kindred spirits?

Hummer, get back into the kitchen – the dishes are piling up.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 03:42 PM

Comments

Let me get this straight: When Pat Robertson prays for divine intervention to change the character of the Supreme Court – he’s a right wing fanatic. But when William Rivers Pitt calls for God in Heaven to deliver a reckoning – he’s a mainstream liberal?

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 03:50 PM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

Like you, Colonel David Hackworth (retired) has both an inflated sense of his own intelligence and an uncontrollable animus towards Donald Rumsfeld.

In Hack’s case, it’s occasioned by professional jealousy – he’s been so wrong for so long (Hack’s actual combat experience was in Vietnam) that he can’t see straight. Hack was one of the nattering no-nothings predicting a quagmire in Iraq and is just fit to be tied about our sterling performance.

Hack also never made general officer – a defining mark in our military. Of course, he says he was cashiered for speaking his mind – just like the words he claims were spoken to him by our soldiers.

In your case, Matilda, I’m at a loss to explain it – most folks grow up by the time they reach seventy.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 03:53 PM

Comments

Hey Hummer, you forgot to cite the “Protocols of Zion”.

Is it any wonder that you can’t find a decent job? I know, the Jews are keeping you down. Poor puppy.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 06:05 PM

Comments

From 8/11 Opinion Journal

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003872

BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, August 11, 2003 2:07 p.m.

Inventing a Quagmire We missed this last week, but it's so stunning that it's worth highlighting even a few days late. The corrections column of Thursday's New York Times carried the following "editor's note":

An article on Sunday about attacks on the American military in Iraq over the previous two days, attributed to military officials, included an erroneous account that quoted Pfc. Jose Belen of the First Armored Division. Private Belen, who is not a spokesman for the division, said that a homemade bomb exploded under a convoy on Saturday morning on the outskirts of Baghdad and killed two American soldiers and their interpreter. The American military's central command, which releases information on all American casualties in Iraq, said before the article was published that it could not confirm Private Belen's account. Later it said that no such attack had taken place and that no American soldiers were killed on Saturday.

Repeated efforts by The Times to reach Private Belen this week have been unsuccessful. The Times should not have attributed the account to "military officials," and should have reported that the command had not verified the attack.

Consider that: The New York Times is acknowledging that it published a fabricated account of American casualties in Iraq. There's no reason to doubt the Times' contention that its source, as opposed to its reporter, was behind the original fabrication, but it seems fair, based on the paper's account, to say that the Times "sexed up" its reporting by promoting a single private to "military officials" (plural) and by failing to note Centcom's doubts, much less wait for confirmation before running with the story. (The original article is no longer available free on the Times Web site, but here's a later version that appeared in the Tri-Valley Herald of Pleasanton, Calif.)

The Times, of course, used its news pages as well as its editorials to crusade against the liberation of Iraq, and it's hard not to interpret this latest foul-up as reflecting an unhealthy eagerness to believe Iraq is a quagmire producing large numbers of casualties. Anyway, remember this the next time some Times editorial or op-ed columnist raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's credibility.

Date:: 08/12/03
Time:: 06:54 PM

Comments

If you're thinking of a Christmas gift for Matilda ...

KB Toys has just the gift:

BBI proudly introduces the latest issue in its Elite Force series of authentic military 12- inch figures, President George W. Bush in naval aviator flight uniform. Exacting in detail and fully equipped with authentic gear, this limited-edition action figure is a meticulous 1:6 scale recreation of the Commander-in-Chief's appearance during his historic Aircraft Carrier landing. . . .

This fully poseable figure features a realistic head sculpt, fully detailed cloth flight suit, helmet with oxygen mask, survival vest, g-pants, parachute harness and much more.

Could anything be cooler than this? And it's only $39.95.

Date:: 08/12/03
Time:: 10:22 PM

Comments

Can Matilda (or her boys hummer and Kevin) tell us again what all the years of moral outrage of the democrats over soft money were about?

I'm referring to the new liberal political outfit dedicated to defeating President Bush next year - "Americans coming together" (ACT).

Sen McCain and his band of liberals pass campaign reforn to keep big money out of politics and hand a fund raising edge to incumbants.

ACt is beig finaced by a handful of rich folks - $10 million from George Soros and another $12 Million from 6 anonymous donors.

Instead of being routed though political parites that are publicly acountable, they will go to groups like ACT that can operate in the shadows with diffuse responsibility.

I won't hold my breath waiting to hear from the liberal hippocrates on this page.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 05:31 AM

Comments

The new George W. Bush Texas ANG Action Figure is on Ebay.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 07:16 AM

Comments

Why does the dimocrat double standard of campaign reform suprise you? The Clinton followers will do anything to win back the presidency. It doesn't matters who suffers as was seen when they stated they were in favor of allowing the California economy to tank to inprove their chances of winning.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 07:30 AM

Comments

Now this is a good idea:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?

All the freaks can live there.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 11:02 PM

Comments

Why no comment on the Dimocrats switch on campaign finance? Surely you can spin it and blame it on the GOP. C'mon, give it a try.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 04:46 AM

Comments

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030

Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime' Iraq: invasion that will live in infamy

by NOAM CHOMSKY ; August 11, 2003

Excerpt;

"The Wall Street Journal recognised that Bush's carefully staged aircraft carrier extravaganza "marks the beginning of his 2004 re-election campaign" which the White House hopes "will be built as much as possible around national-security themes". The electoral campaign will focus on "the battle of Iraq , not the war", chief Republican political strategist Karl Rove explained : the war must continue, if only to control the population at home" (10).

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 07:21 AM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

The endquote you placed after the excerpt from Chomsky's piece suggests that Rove stated a wish to "control" the population. If you're going to cite passages that contain quotations you should nest the inner quotations with single quotation marks so as to avoid confusion.

Of course, Rove said no such thing. You and Chomsky are entitled to your nutty ideas -- and you're entitled to express them. It's precisely for these reasons that your attempts to cast the Republicans as engaging in "mind control" are so absurd.

You Dims have lost the idea wars -- probably for all time -- because you have none. All you can do is to attempt to smear your betters as you try to regain the control of America you truly believe is your birthright.

Get a job.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 07:37 AM

Comments

This is a rather long but very thoughtful and complete rundown on Howard Dean as a candidate fo the presidency. I hope you will take the time to read it....You'll be glad you did. And forward it to other Americans who are still undecided about the presidential election next year. Matilda

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16592

The Progressive Case for Howard Dean

By Nico Pitney, AlterNet August 12, 2003

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 01:14 PM

Comments

Be sure to tell them how Dean will say anything to any group to be elected. As an example cite how he lied to the AFL when he said he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70.

Then just like Clinton, he said he "mispoke" when called on it.

Typical lying democrat.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 03:41 PM

Comments

Here's a reply to a post from 14/08/03 at 07:21 a.m. addressed Earth to Matilda. I just copied and pasted this from Google. You can look it up if you like, and I wish you would check things out before accusing me of lying. Matilda

Sorry, my copy and paste system didn't work, but you can go to www.google.com and type in Rove's quote. Chomsky, incidentally, is a distinguished professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 05:47 PM

Comments

Gentle Matilda,

Have you no counter to the accusation Dean is a liar and the Democrats are hippocritical when it comes to campaign finace reform?

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 10:23 PM

Comments

How about Kevin or Hummer. Don't leave them out.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 08:53 AM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

No one accused you of "lying" when you posted an excerpt from:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030

But what you did do was to enclose your excerpt within double quotes -- which you added. By so doing you made it appear that the words Chomsky added were actually spoken by Rove -- WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE.

Chomsky wrote, "chief Republican political strategist Karl Rove explained : the war must continue, if only to control the population at home" (10)"

Rove NEVER said, "the war must continue, if only to control the population at home"" -- these were Chomsky's words.

Do you get it now?

OBTW, thank you for acknowledging that you are the anonymous poster of the dim-witted liberal tripe that appears during the wee hours in America.

OBTW, what's "distinguished" about Chomsky is how far off the wall he's fallen. Here's an excerpt from a short bio on him from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Criticism of the United States He has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the United States government. In his book 9-11, a series of interviews about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, he claims -- as he has done before -- that the United States government is the leading terrorist state in modern times. He has criticized the US government for its involvement in the Vietnam War and the larger Indochina conflict; its interference in Central and South American countries, and its military support of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Chomsky focuses his most intense criticism on official friends of the United States government while criticizing official enemies like the former Soviet Union and the North Vietnamese Army only in passing. He explains this by the following principle: it is more important to evaluate actions which you have more possibility of affecting.

Chomsky has repeatedly emphasized his theory that much of the United States' foreign policy is based on the "threat of a good example" (which he says is another name for the domino theory). The "threat of a good example" is that a country could successfully develop independently from United States' influences, thus presenting a model for other countries, including countries in which the United States has strong economic interests. This, Chomsky says, has prompted the United States to repeatedly intervene to quell "socialist" or other "independence" movements in regions of the world where it has no significant economic or safety interests. In one of his most famous works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky uses this particular theory as an explantion for the United States' interventions in Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua, and Grenada.

Chomsky believes the US government's Cold War policies were not shaped by anti-Soviet paranoia, but rather to preserve the United States' ideological dominance of the world. As he wrote in Uncle Sam: "...What the US wants is 'stability,' meaning security for the "upper classes and large foreign enterprises."

Chomsky and Socialism Chomsky is deeply opposed to the system of "corporate state capitalism" practiced by the United States and it's allies. Chomsky instead believes in the superiority of "control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions", what some call socialism. At the same time, he denounced the Soviet Union for running a brutal authoritarian police state, and viewed the evolution of the Soviet state as a natural growth of the Bolshevik ideology.

Instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, in Reasons for the State Chomsky advocates a society with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to persue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no "state" or "government" institutions.

One focus of his political work has been an analysis of mainstream media (especially in the United States), its structures and constraints, and its role in supporting ruling class interests. His book Manufacturing Consent -- The Political Economy of the Mass Media, co-authored with Edward Herman, explores this topic in depth, though most of his work incorporates some aspect of this analysis.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 09:48 AM

Comments

You conservative types just don't get it:

Matilda didn't "lie" when she used Chomsky's words to make it appear that Karl Rove admitted to trying to "control the American population". But GWB "lied" when he said (in his State of the Union address) that Great Britain claimed to have evidence that Saddam attempted to get uranium ore.

Lifelog (ex)patriots like Matilda are incapable of lying (they'd have to be able to distinguish truth from falsehoods).

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 12:11 PM

Comments

And Democratic front runner Dean doesn't lie. In his words, he "mis-spoke".

Ex-President Clinton would be proud.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 04:52 PM

Comments

Between Chirac and a hard place http://www.townhall.com/columnists/helledale/HD20030815.shtml

Trouble in paradise? Perhaps things aren't as nice in Nice as Matilda let's on?

ONO, Matilda will tell one and all how terrific are the benefits of living in France and how compassionate the French are.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 07:06 PM

Comments

The public sections of the official 9/11 report describe possible financial support by individuals in the Saudi government for some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudis (and NONE of whom were Iraqis). This article ("Bush Family Ties Keep American Focus Off Saudi Support of Terror") is about a year old, but it's worth a look in light of the "28 missing pages" (which further implicate the Saudis) in the 9/11 report that President Bush refuses to release. Note in particular the quote from a Rand Corporation analyst that starts the article. The Rand Corporation isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism--it's a conservative think tank that works closely with the Pentagon. I understand President Bush is a country fan. Unfortunately, that country is Saudi Arabia.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher79.html

The findings of the 9/11 report mirror what I have been saying all along: (1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; (2) there is no evidence of any connection between al-Qaida and Iraq and (3) members of the Saudi government, including members of the Royal Family, supported and financed some of the 9/11 hijackers. If we really wanted to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, it would have made more sense to bomb Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. The fact is that Bush and his close chums the terrorist-supporting Saudis have more ties to 9/11 than Saddam Hussein.

Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who was a member of the joint congressional committee that produced the 9/11 report, had this to say about it: "The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends...The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out...Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

Related article: "Saudi secrets are safe with Bush."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=

Please write to your representatives in Congress to demand the release of the 28 missing pages in the 9/11 report!

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 07:41 PM

Comments

Gentle readers,

We don't care if we see the missing pages. We did not invade Iraq because they helped with 9/11. We invaded them to rid Iraq of a murdering sadistic dictator that refused to comply with UN sanctions.

What don't you liberals understand? Stop saying we invaded them for ANY other reason, it's not true.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 08:24 PM

Comments

That's a bunch of crap, man. What primary justification did Gee Dubya give to the American people in OVER 200 SPEECHES prior to the war? WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Now that we have found exactly ZERO WMD, all you Republicans are saying, "Well, we were 'liberating the Iraqi people' and 'getting rid of a brutal dictator,' the SAME dictator we supported for many years, the SAME dictator who we sold WMDs to during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations, even after he gassed 5,000 Kurds to death in 1988. Man, some of you Republicans tend to conveniently ignore our recent history! If our mission is to rid the world of dictators, then why have we supported so many? The Shah of Iran, Saddam, Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, Diem...I could go on and on. You have to be really naive to think we care about "liberating" poor people of color in foreign countries. Of all the brutal dictatorships in the world, why do we intervene ONLY in Iraq? What about Communist China? Or the Central Asian republics? Or our ally Pakistan for that matter? Or Saudi Arabia, the REAL culprits in 9/11? We wouldn't be having this discussion if Iraq did not possess the world's second largest supply of oil reserves.

And BTW, you didn't even address one of the central themes of my comments (written on 8/15, 7:06 p.m.): the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudis. Oh, yeah, you Republicans just choose to ignore that, just like you ignore recent history. Hey, you can't criticize some liberal website for printing that. A RAND CORPORATION analyst strongly criticized Bush's ties to the Saudis.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 10:15 PM

Comments

Good try but don't hold your breath.

Now it's time for someone to say, "Yeah, but what about Clinton?"

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 12:15 AM

Comments

Troops in Iraq face pay cut; Pentagon says tough duty pay is budget-buster.

This is despicable. Note how the Bush administration ducks the issue. This shows that Bush doesn't put his money where his mouth is when it comes to supporting the troops. What a hypocrite! Even the Army Times has blasted the Pentagon, the administration and Congress on this. This is another reason to write your Congressional representatives.

After the veterans benefits were slashed by this administration, Bush goes on the hunt for more slashing in the military. Does Bush really give a hoot about the po' folk in the armed forces? Just how much again is this occupation costing us? WWACS? (What would Ann Coulter say?) Treason? If we can't afford it, why are we there in the first place? And just where is Osama anyway?

The additional hazardous duty pay for our troops is a pittance when compared to all the profits Halliburton and company are going to make off this war. It's nothing sort of atrocious that this administration would consider cutting the pay of the men and women serving our country. Sadly, our armed forces personnel are puppets Bush is using to implement his misguided foreign policy. The least Bush could do is pay them fairly, and yet now he has the audacity to consider cutting their pay.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 06:37 AM

Comments

Wait...Democrats are complaining that Republicans are cutting the military?

They are doing it with a straight face?

What a bunch of hippocrites!!!!

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 04:13 PM

Comments

This is a very revealing and compelling article that should certainly interest every American. Please remember that the first sentence out of Bush's mouth that dreadful day was "I intend to call for a full-scale investigation of this." What is being kept from us????? Matilda

9/11 Commission: 'White House Cover-Up Exists' http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081603A.shtml

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 05:41 PM

Comments

What is being kept from us?????

Earth to Matilda,

If indeed GWB was trying to "keep the truth from the American people", why then isn't their public outrage?

Could it be that we simple folks see through the political gamesmanship perpetrated by the Dimocrats?

OBTW, neither your cite nor the underlying Newsday story provided links to the actual reports -- just their spin. This is significant because any congressional report issued by this Congress COULD NOT be so partisanly judgemental. The Republicans control both houses. Hence, the hatchet job by the rabidly partisan Newsday just makes wild charges with silly half-quotes.

What does the lefty press not want us to read????

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 06:17 PM

Comments

This is for the Republican who posted above who can't spell "hypocrite." BTW, both my brother and I are Democrats. Our father served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years. Both my brother and I attended the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. And both of us opposed the war on Iraq from the beginning. Enough of this crap that Democrats are "anti-military." "Supporting the troops" doesn't mean sending them in harm's way for TOTALLY FABRICATED AND BOGUS REASONS. And it sure as hell doesn't mean cutting their pay, especially when they are in a combat zone. But Bush and the other millionaire chickenhawks in his administration who did everything they could to avoid combat in Vietnam surely aren't very sympathetic because they don't know what it's like to serve in combat. After all, it's the poor and minorities (note the many immigrant Hispanic Marines and soldiers killed in the war) who are always disproportionately represented on the front lines when our nation goes to war. Rich white guys like Gee Dubya start wars; they and their children never fight wars.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-soldierpaycut1.htm

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 08:00 PM

Comments

To the Dimocrat and his brother -- who can spell hippocrTo the Dimocrat and his brother -- who can spell hypocrite but who can’t remember how much they applauded Clinton when he rained death on innocents in Belgrade and the Sudan.

Yeah, you and your brother (and the horse you both rode in on) “opposed this war” from the beginning – well aren’t you the morons? A fiendish tyrant who killed over a million of his own people is gone and you’re sorry?

OOOOOHHHH, but your upset that soldiers and sailors and airmen who aren’t actually stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan might not be able to draw hazardous duty pay? Yeah, right – Like I’d want you Dims to lead this country?

OBTW, you should address any spelling issues to Kevin – he ought to add a spell-checker.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 01:21 PM

Comments

The inquiry's report devotes 15 pages to describing a pattern of Bush administration denials and delaying tactics that prevented a fuller account of national failure before the attack. Last month the independent 9/11 commission still probing the attack issued a similar compendium of complaint.

Worry, if you will, about those 28 pages involving the Saudi sheiks. But a deeper, darker problem is our own government's refusal to fill in the blanks about itself.

Read full article: The inquiry's report devotes 15 pages to describing a pattern of Bush administration denials and delaying tactics that prevented a fuller account of national failure before the attack. Last month the independent 9/11 commission still probing the attack issued a similar compendium of complaint.

Worry, if you will, about those 28 pages involving the Saudi sheiks. But a deeper, darker problem is our own government's refusal to fill in the blanks about itself.

Read full article at:

9/11 Commission: 'White House Cover-Up Exists'

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081603A.shtml

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 01:27 PM

Comments

Ah yes, the non-partisan truth out webpage. You can always count on them for a fair and unbiased report.

and Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman"

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 02:14 PM

Comments

As usual, you Dims are confused. There are two inquiries – the joint congressional one that just released it’s report and an ongoing independent commission that’s rife with partisanship (Max Cleveland’s on it).

The trouthout.org’s piece relies solely on an 8/7 article in Newsday.

If anyone is interested in what the Administration would or would not release to Congress, check out the full report at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

and the appendix detailing what access was delayed or denied to the commission:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/

A short reading of this ought to make it clear that the Administration was most likely protecting intelligence sources (most of which make regular reports to the appropriate subcommittees anyway) and internal deliberations, -- and the current prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui.

There are thirty-one pages in this appendix. Five pages are devoted to the negotiations with the DOJ, and four pages to information that the Administration deemed privileged, and three pages to information that was released after negotiations.

I guess you Dims can’t even count.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 02:30 PM

Comments

WEDNESDAY, AUG. 6, 2003

LIBERALISM BY WALTER CRONKITE

I hope we all get along as we go along. I expect that occasionally we'll have some differences of opinion. I expect to be provocative. After more than 60 years as a journalist, I have some ideas about the state of our nation, of our world, of our culture, and I wouldn't be true to the purpose of a column if I didn't vent them here.

My hope is that you will find my commentary interesting, informative, perhaps occasionally amusing (deliberately, that is), and, at all times, fair and as unbiased as it is possible for opinion to be.

You are going to disagree with me from time to time, and I'll be disappointed if you don't. That fulfills the provocative requirement of a column like this.

When the nation was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, we at CBS got a lot of mail complaining about our coverage. I was disturbed until we found out that the number of letters condemning us as being government lackeys in support of the war almost precisely balanced those condemning us as being sympathetic to the war protesters. I relaxed with the simple philosophy that if you are being shot at from both sides, you must be in the middle of the road.

Let's face this one down right now: I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm a registered independent because I find that I cast my votes not on the basis of party loyalty but on the issues of the moment and my assessment of the candidates.

Basically I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but those who rabidly support those positions will be more often disappointed in my views than otherwise.

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities -- the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.

We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased. That clearly doesn't apply when one deserts the front page for the editorial page and the columns to which opinion should be isolated.

The perceived liberalism of television reporters, I am convinced, is a product of the limited time given for any particular item. The reporter desperately tries to get all the important facts and essential viewpoints into his or her piece but, against a fast-approaching deadline, he or she must summarize in a sentence the complicated story. That is where the slippage occurs and the summary too frequently, without intention, seems to emphasize one side or the other.

(The answer to that problem, as with much else in television news, is in more time for the dominant evening newscasts. In our ever more complicated and confusing world, those newscasts need an hour.)

Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant."

I've always suspected those fine folks at Random House of being liberals. You just can't trust anybody these days.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 03:44 PM

Comments

"...who can’t remember how much they applauded Clinton when he rained death on innocents in Belgrade and the Sudan."

What the hell makes you think every Democrat agreed with everything Clinton did? I sure as hell didn't. I didn't agree with his military actions in Somalia or his complete inaction in Rwanda in 1994 that resulted in the deaths of 800,000 innocent people.

"...well aren’t you the morons? A fiendish tyrant who killed over a million of his own people is gone and you’re sorry?"

No, you're the moron. Gee, if only the world were as simplistic as you Republicans seem to think it is. Saddam was a modern-day Hitler; therefore, we had to knock him off and "liberate" the Iraqi people (who are thanking us by welcoming their "liberators" with RPGs and sniper fire) by bombing them and killing untold thousands of them. As I previously stated, you Republicans tend to conveniently forget recent history. Please explain why for 12 years (during the Reagan and Bush I administrations) WE, the U.S., supported this "fiendish dictator" by providing him with military intelligence and selling him WMD, the very WMD we now complain about. And please explain why we kept supporting Saddam despite being fully aware that he used chemical weapons on the Iranians (in violation of international law) and on his own people, the Kurds. Those 5,000 innocent people (mainly women and children) that Saddam gassed to death in a Kurdish village in 1988 were killed with mustard gas Saddam bought from the U.S. WHY DIDN'T WE CALL SADDAM A "FIENDISH DICTATOR" BACK THEN WHEN HE WAS BUYING OUR WEAPONS AND USING THEM ILLEGALLY? How convenient it is for conservatives to say our main purpose for the war was "liberating the Iraqi people" from a "fiendish dictator" now that we can't find a single WMD in Iraq. And you conservatives can never answer the question I posed in a previous post: Of all the brutal dictatorships in the world, why do we intervene militarily ONLY in Iraq? Do you really believe that OIL had absolutely NOTHING to do with this invasion?

Iraq didn't want to be "liberated," yet we send troops. OTOH, Bush was indecisive about sending troops to Liberia, where they are wanted and desperately needed. Further, we didn't send troops to Congo and Rwanda, where millions have been killed in recent years. And we sure aren't sending troops to North Korea, even thought that's a far more dangerous country than Iraq, a country we know is developing its own nuclear program. For one thing, North Korea has no oil. Additionally, we know that unlike Iraq, North Korea has a strong military and could give us a REAL fight.

Here's an article to refresh the memory of blind Republicans who forget that we supported Iraq and Saddam during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Note the picture at the beginning of the article. Rummy and Saddam, sittin' in a tree...Can any of you conservatives explain why Rummy would shake hands with a "fiendish dictator?"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

"OOOOOHHHH, but your (sic) upset that soldiers and sailors and airmen who aren’t actually stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan might not be able to draw hazardous duty pay?"

Read the article again, bonehead. Its title is "Troops IN IRAQ face pay cuts." Stop trying to make excuses for your chickenhawk, make-pretend war hero, combat-avoiding AWOL commander-in-chief and his VP, Dick "Four Draft Deferments" Cheney. For Bush to even consider a pay cut for our young men and women serving in Iraq is unconscionable. A village in Texas is most definitely missing an idiot.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 06:43 PM

Comments

"Iraq didn't want to be "liberated," yet we send troops. "

Oh, I'm sorry. I called you a moron. I should have called you a NAZI bastard (the baath's were basically a derivative of National Socialism -- but you knew that).

I'm glad to correspond with someone who can speak for Iraq. Tell me, did you enjoy having one to two million of your citizens tortured and murdered by Saddam?

Oh, you were really speaking for Saddam when you claimed Iraq didn't want to be liberated. Of course.

Just don't pretend you speak for Americans. Buddy, you don't. And you'll find out in spades a year from next November.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 09:17 PM

Comments

No, the Democrats usually carry the spade vote.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 12:13 AM

Comments

So I've been told that in California we're losing around $30 million a day under the leadership of Gray Davis. Now, he's facing a recall that's going to cost probably three times that much.

What I'm wondering is: Where's the movement to recall GW Bush? Please, point me there, I will gladly go and sign up

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 01:32 AM

Comments

I would like to recommend an excellent book to the readers of this website. It's entitled Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. The author is William Blum, a former Foreign Service officer. Check it out here and read the customer comments:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511945/

Here's part of what Blum had to say about Iraq. (I used this to substantiate my point with a conservative friend that we don't really care about "liberating" the Iraqi people; if we did, we wouldn't have abandoned the Kurds to a terrible fate like this. That was the end of the debate, as he had no response.) After we abandoned the Kurds, Saddam Hussein, who was in charge of Iraq's security forces back then, took great pleasure in torturing and murdering them as we stood idly by. Yeah, we sure helped the Kurds "fight for freedom," right? Note the quote by Henry Kissinger. That SOB should be charged with and convicted of war crimes!

As a favor to a very important ally, the Shah of Iran, President Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger provided military aid to the Kurds fighting for their autonomy in Iraq, Iran's perennial foe. Though the military aid was to total some $16 million, the object--unknown to the Kurds--was not to win them their autonomy, but to sap the Iraqi resources and distract them from Iran. Said a CIA memo of 1974: "Iran, like ourselves, has seen benefit in a stalemate situation...in which Iraq is intrinsically weakened by the Kurds' refusal to relinquish semi-autonomy. Neither Iran nor ourselves wish to see the matter resolved one way or another." The congressional Pike Committee later investigating the CIA, commented: "This policy was not imparted to [the Kurds], who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."

In 1975, oil politics brought Iraq and Iran together, and the latter, along with the United States, abandoned the Kurds to a terrible fate. At a crucial point, the Kurds were begging Kissinger for help, but he completely ignored their pleas. Kurd forces were decimated; several hundred of their leaders were executed. Later, when questioned about this by the Pike Commission, Kissinger responded: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 01:56 AM

Comments

This is called "fun with conservatives" because you guys are so easy to slam dunk in a debate.

"Oh, I'm sorry. I called you a moron. I should have called you a NAZI bastard (the baath's were basically a derivative of National Socialism -- but you knew that)."

Ah, yes--the "Ann Coulter syndrome." Anyone who dares to oppose Gee Dubya's policies is a traitor, un-American, unpatriotic and/or a communist. "Nazi" is a new one to me, though. Seems to me that Bush, Ashcroft etc. are acting like Nazis by making our country more like a fascist state with the so-called "Patriot Act." I don't know about you, but I don't think the government has any right to find out what I'm checking out from the library or video store. Hey, aren't you Republicans supposed to be for "small government" and "minimum interference of government into our private lives?" Dubya also proposed a few months ago that Americans should spy on each other. Gee, who's the "Nazi" here? And finally, isn't dissent supposed to be a cornerstone of democracy? You wouldn't know that the way many Republicans talk. Dare to dissent and their response is, "Vee have vays of sealing vit you!"

"I'm glad to correspond with someone who can speak for Iraq. Tell me, did you enjoy having one to two million of your citizens tortured and murdered by Saddam?"

Typical conservative--you don't address any of the points I made above and simply respond with ad hominems. What's your response to the FACT I pointed out that our government under Reagan and Bush I supported Saddam and provided him with military intelligence as well as WMD which he used to kill his own people? You think we really cared about the "freedom" of the Iraqi people when we were assisting in their torture and murder by supporting Saddam? You act as if the U.S. had no responsibility whatsoever in bringing Saddam to power and in the deaths of these Iraqi civilians. And you provide no response to the picture of Rummy shaking hands with the "fiendish dictator" Saddam. Further, you don't answer the question I pose to all conservatives who debate me on this issue: If we're in the business of taking out dictators, why do we intervene ONLY in Iraq? Why not North Korea? And why don't we "off" the DICTATORS who happen to be our allies, such as the ones ruling Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

"Oh, you were really speaking for Saddam when you claimed Iraq didn't want to be liberated. Of course."

And you were speaking for the 6,000+ Iraqi civilians who said, "Bomb us and kill us, American liberators, then have Halliburton and Bush's other buddies get multi-million dollar contracts without competition to rebuild our country and take control of our oil, then try to replace Saddam with Chalabi, who was convicted of extortion and hasn't been in our country in four decades. Meanwhile, we will show our happiness to our great liberators by killing American soldiers and Marines every day." Yup, that's the kind of democracy we want there--put in a puppet friendly to U.S. interests (oil). Iraqi people be damned. This same scenario has happened many times in our history (Pinochet 1973, the Shah of Iran, 1953 for example). Oh, but historical facts are the inconvenient little things Republicans tend to conveniently ignore.

"Just don't pretend you speak for Americans. Buddy, you don't. And you'll find out in spades a year from next November."

You don't have a crystal ball, and neither do I, but I know one thing--Dubya's poll numbers have gone WAY down in the last few months. Ah, yes, Dubya's doing such a fine job on the economy by implementing tax cuts for the rich (Leave no millionaire behind!) and spending $4 billion in tax dollars per month in Iraq. Thousands of Americans have lost their jobs under Bush's watch. Dubya can be defeated just like his daddy, especially if the war on Iraq and the economy continue the way they have.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 02:05 AM

Comments

California:

Government employees in the Golden State earn more than the private sector workers who pay their salaries ....Economists refer to this backward ratio between public and private sector salaries as "France."

This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 02:55 AM

Comments

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

"The common good comes before the private good."

Two similar quotes. The first came from the smartest woman on earth, Hillary Clinton. The second dates back to the 1930's from those other do-gooders, the Nazis.

For those who like to find similarities between history and our present day: ``The Fascist conception of life,stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.'' Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (Rome: Adrita Press, 1935), p. 10.

For the record, the classical liberalism above refers to the idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its ``just powers'' only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state - a far cry from what today's "liberals" believe in.

May God protect us from those who want to protect us.

Peter Newark

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 05:27 AM

Comments

"This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation. "

This is why we can't allow liberals to win back the presidency and control congress. Imagine what they would do for the country. Vote Republican!

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 06:06 AM

Comments

Message to previous poster:

Are you for REAL??????? Have you been living on the MOON?????? Do you expect ANYONE to believe statements like that??????? Were you fully awake when you wrote that????? If it was simply an honest mistake, please feel free to use my message board to correct it. LET'S TALK SENSE.....please!! Matilda

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 06:51 AM

Comments

What are you talking about Matilda? California is a perfect example of what happens when a liberal government runs a state full of liberal programs.

I'd hate to see what they would do with the economy of the United States. Vote Republican!

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 07:00 AM

Comments

Hammerless, since you accuse the Israelis of racism, a few questions for you: How many Muslims are allowed to live in Israel, vs how many Jews are allowed to live under the Palestinian authority. You rail against the plight of Palestinians who marry Israelis and yet do not get residency or citizenship; Please tell us what happens to a Jew who marries a Palestinian; To an Israeli who would attempt to live independantly in the territory of the Palestinian authority. For that matter, are you aware of what happens to a Palestinian who sells property to an Israeli? How long do you think a lone unarmed Israeli or Jew would live in Arafat's land of freedom? As unofficial Minister of Propaganda for the Palestinian Authority, you must be trying to become the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels.

PS Matilda, I think the comment about Argentina and the Congo was a Joke. I can't verify, but the deficit part is awfully closer to reality. BTW, is it really true that employees in France's public sector earn more than their private counterparts?

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 07:20 AM

Comments

“This is called "fun with conservatives" because you guys are so easy to slam dunk in a debate”

Really? But this wasn’t even a debate. I blew you away by jumping in your s**t over your stupid claim, "Iraq didn't want to be "liberated," yet we send troops." Guys like you can’t debate – all’s you do is demagogue and diatribe.

How can any man who pretends to reason claim that an oppressed people “didn’t want to be liberated”?

Oh, I get it. Your one of those “liberal Democrats” who are obliged to criticize EVERY action of our President because you lust for power – that’s yours by birthright, of course. No matter how manifest is the good – you poor bastards see the bad.

I’d feel sorry for you – but I’m too full of sorrow for Saddam’s victims – the list you wish he’d a be addin’ to.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 03:23 PM

Comments

To Saddam's appologists:

OBTW, there was never ANY substance to the Dim's wild charge that military pay for our soldiers and sailors and airmen in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN would be reduced:

Undersecretary Of Defense For Personnel And Readiness David Chu Confirms Compensation Will Not Be Reduced. "I'd just like very quickly to put to rest what I understand has been a burgeoning rumor that somehow we are going to reduce compensation for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not true. We are not going to reduce their compensation. · What I'm saying on the record for Iraq and Afghanistan, absolutely yes, we are going to continue compensation for those folks." (Department Of Defense, Press Conference, 8/15/03)

Even If Congress Allows Temporary Allowance Provisions To Expire In September, Defense Department Has More Effective Compensation Measures To Use. "The department has a variety of pay and allowance powers already with which it plans to maintain the compensation of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should the current allowance provisions expire. · But actually we would prefer· to use those other compensation powers as our way of ensuring that we target these compensation benefits on the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. · We have hardship duty pay · we have some incentive pay with which we can compensate people in Iraq should these allowances fall back to levels prior to April of this year when Congress enacted new levels with which we can and will · maintain compensation in Iraq. " (Defense Undersecretary David Chu, Press Conference, 8/15/03)

Kerry, Lieberman And Gephardt Missed Vote Providing Temporary Allowances To Soldiers In Iraq And Afghanistan. (S.762, CQ Vote #125: Passed 93-0: R 48-0; D 44-0; I 1-0, 4/3/03, With Graham And Edwards Voting Yea And Kerry And Lieberman Not Voting; H.R.1559, CQ Vote #108: Passed 414-12: R 222-2; D 192-9; I 0-1, 4/3/03, With Gephardt Not Voting)

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 04:48 PM

Comments

Salt Lake Tribune

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where is Bin Laden? Where is my 401K? How did a huge governmental surplus become a huge deficit in two years? During the campaign, why did George Bush say he was a great uniter? Why did the reasons we went to war with Iraq change after the troops landed? Where were President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft and members of Congress during the Vietnam War? Where are their kids during this war? Was there a plan for postwar Iraq, or is it trial and error? Where have 2 million jobs gone over the last two years? How many people died during Clinton's "lie?" How many have died during Bush's "truth?" How can they say they are for the military, yet cut veterans' benefits? Why were we told the 2003 tax cut would benefit all families, then find out -- after it is passed -- that 20 million would not benefit? If we are a democracy, a voice of truth and freedom, why isn't the full report released on the 9-11 attacks? Why aren't the names of those who sat on the Bush/Cheney Energy Panel released? Why is it wrong to ask questions? Why do I feel we have gone back to the 1950s' secret, paranoid, McCarthyism atmosphere? Why will I, a retired military vet with two boys serving overseas -- or any American -- be called an un-American, yellow-bellied liberal for asking these questions? Why?

Greg Dunn Tooele

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 05:14 PM

Comments

What Rush would say to Greg:

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Have patience, my friend. David Kay’s report will be out in September. Let me ask you a question: Were you asleep or not yet born in 1998? What did your favorite President and his administration and the leading democrats in Congress have to say about Saddam and his WMD programs and his refusal to abide by the treaties he signed back then?

Where is Bin Laden?

I have no idea? Do you know?

Where is my 401K?

I guess it’s in the dumpster. Is this supposed to be GWB’s fault? Did you allow greed to get in the way of your good sense? Did you lose your life savings chasing the internet bubble? If you did, why should any of us listen to what you have to say now?

How did a huge governmental surplus become a huge deficit in two years?

It’s called a recession and a war. How did a huge deficit turn into a huge surplus during the 90’s? Don’t tell me Clinton had anything to do with it. If you believe that – show me his hand.

During the campaign, why did George Bush say he was a great uniter?

Because he is. Do you see him responding to all of your ad homonym attacks?

Why did the reasons we went to war with Iraq change after the troops landed?

They didn’t, of course. Point to even one statement that GWB retracted.

Where were President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft and members of Congress during the Vietnam War?

Where were Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell during Vietnam? Name one Clinton cabinet member who served in Vietnam.

Where are their kids during this war?

Didn’t anyone tell you that we’ve gone to an all volunteer military? We ended the draft after Vietnam.

Was there a plan for postwar Iraq, or is it trial and error?

You ought to learn something about the troubles we had reconstructing Europe after the second World War. Check out the “Werewolves”.

Where have 2 million jobs gone over the last two years?

A lot of folks lost their jobs due to the Clinton recession. But GWB’s tax cuts are beginning to kick in and with any luck the economy will be growing nicely by November 2004.

How many people died during Clinton's "lie?"

Are you suggesting (by your “scare quotes” around the word, “lie”) that perjury by the chief executive officer of these United States is not lying?

How many have died during Bush's "truth?"

A lot fewer than would have been tortured and killed had we not taken out Al Quaida and Saddam.

How can they say they are for the military, yet cut veterans' benefits?

No veteran’s benefits have been cut.

Why were we told the 2003 tax cut would benefit all families, then find out -- after it is passed -- that 20 million would not benefit?

I assume that you are complaining that the folks who don’t pay federal income tax don’t now have to pay any less? What you’re asking for is more welfare. You must be a Democrat.

If we are a democracy, a voice of truth and freedom, why isn't the full report released on the 9-11 attacks?

If you’re referring to the sequestered 28 pages from the joint congressional report, I presume because the release might jeopardize ongoing intelligence operations.

Why aren't the names of those who sat on the Bush/Cheney Energy Panel released?

For the same reasons none of your favorite Senators and Congressman release their diaries and meeting minutes. Candid advice demands some privacy.

Why is it wrong to ask questions?

Is anyone stopping you – even though you don’t make a lot of sense?

Why do I feel we have gone back to the 1950s' secret, paranoid, McCarthyism atmosphere?

I’m not qualified to psychoanalyze you.

Why will I, a retired military vet with two boys serving overseas -- or any American -- be called an un-American, yellow-bellied liberal for asking these questions?

Dunno – I certainly haven’t called you any names. I don’t think you’re being honest, nor do I think you’re particularly smart – but I have’nt hurled any epithets.

Why?

Why indeed?

Date:: 08/18/03