Date:

06/10/03

Time:

12:07 AM

Comments

To the right-wing conservative: you have proven my point, just as I expected, and even stated. Thank you for participating, I knew you could not resist...you took the bait. I do have a question, thought: do you feel better about yourself? or does all of your hate, ignorance, and rage keep you up late at night? Please respond...it should be interesting. (and try to create something original instead of plagiarizing what has already been written)

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

12:13 AM

Comments

Re: "conservative points" made on this message board: no responses. This is because there are no 'conservative points' being made on this message board. And no, name-calling, pundit buzz-words, right-wing hate rhetoric, fabrications, and catch-phrases do not count. Please try again.

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

12:25 AM

Comments

"Clinton selling secrets to the Chinese". Fabricated story. Clinton did not give the Chinese any technology: he signed a bill that renewed "most-favored nation" trade status. In fact, Clinton was pushed by many Republicans, who stood to lose billions of dollars if the bill failed. If there should be any 'outrage' over people 'selling out America', please direct your attention to the members of the 'Project for the New American Century', who are currently selling vital telecommunications technology to China. Recently, Richard Perle, a high-ranking military security official appointed by G.W. Bush, was forced to resign his position at the Pentagon: the NSA found him conducting business with 'questionable' Chinese technology contractors. Though, I guess because they are 'Republicans', there 'treason' is what's best for America. Brush-up on your Cantonese, folks.

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

10:03 AM

Comments

Germany in 1933: "The Easy Slide into Fascism" by Bernard Weiner.

My dear readers, Even if you think George W. Bush is the best president we've ever had, you owe it to yourselves to read this article. The Germans back then could not believe it was happpening and books were written about how "It Can't Happen Here". But read and learn...don't just look for ways to rebut what you read. You are all intelligent people, I know that. So learn what you can from what you read. Thanks, Matilda

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

11:24 AM

Comments

"It's now two months since Baghdad fell — and according to The A.P., military units searching for W.M.D.'s have run out of places to look."

Krugman: "I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war." 6/10

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

05:39 PM

Comments

Conservative point: Democratic Senator Feinstein's husband, profits from War on Iraq:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32190

Still no comment from the liberal side of this group.

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

05:49 PM

Comments

Remember the 170,000 artifacts stolen from the Iraqi National museum? Museum director was misquoted -- only 33 pieces are missing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/

Wasn't missing artifacts one of the many hystrical rantings of the Dimocrats that have been proven wrong? Stay tuned more to follow.

You guys should be pretty full from eating your words by now.

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

06:18 PM

Comments

Matilda, France may be in danger of reverting to facism (imagine a remake of "The Best Years of Our Lives" set in Vichy in 1941) -- but the US of A is emphatically not. We have a free and vibrant press and an anarchistic internet where no holds are barred.

Your real fear is that we may be poised to unmake the permanent dependency you folks have inculcated amongst the have-nots -- and so destroy your political base. It really is all about power, and your frustrations that yours is waning.

Date:

06/10/03

Time:

06:39 PM

Comments

Here's an excellent article by Pete Du Pont: You Can't Outlaw Failure

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110003604

Think about what orthodox liberalism and conservativism teach us about this. Which makes more sense?

Date:

06/11/03

Time:

06:44 AM

Comments

The Nazis, again:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20030610.shtml

Date:

06/11/03

Time:

08:50 AM

Comments

What passes for civilization in France:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/international/europe/11FRAN.html

Matilda, how 'bout talkin' a few words of sense about the place you call home.

Date:

06/11/03

Time:

09:01 AM

Comments

Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth

It seems that the Dims were more than gullible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,974063,00.html

Date:

06/11/03

Time:

09:06 AM

Comments

__On Imus' Show, Joe Scarborough Laughed about Dead Staffer

>From the Daily Dystopian blog: "Conservative MSNBC news host Joe Scarborough was a guest on MSNBC's Imus show last Thursday, May 29. In complementing Scarborough on his sense of humor, Imus said, 'Don't be afraid to be funny, because you are funny. I asked you why you aren't in Congress. You said that you had sex with the intern and then you had to kill her.' To which Scarborough laughed, 'Yeah, ha, ha ha, well, what are you gonna do?'" As the Political Amazon (politicalamazon.com) wrote us, Lori "Klausutis is the Scarborough intern who was found dead in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach office on July 21, 2001. At the same time that cable news shows on Fox and MSNBC were hounding Democratic Rep. Gary Condit over the disappearance of Chandra Levy... Scarborough appears to have been granted a free pass... Regardless of whether Scarborough actually murdered Lori Klaustis, his casual joking about her death is inexcusable." Send complaints to viewerservices@msnbc.com http://www.blogstudio.com/dystopia/

(Imus morning show/ May 29)

Date:

06/11/03

Time:

06:32 PM

Comments

I don't get the point. What lessons should we learn about Don Imus's remarks? According to the post, Imus made the claim that Scarborogh had confessed to him [Imus] thatd he [Scarborough] had to "murder his aide because he'd had sex with her."

Seems to me that this excerpt (if true and factual) is an example of Imus humor. Even an absolute idiot would be skeptical of any claim that a Congressman would confess to Don Imus that he'd committed murder.

Anyway, Scarborough isn't in office and isn't running for office. If you want to be outraged about a politician who got away with murdering an aide after having sex with her (or was about to have sex with her) -- look no further than FAT BOY Teddy Kennedy.

He was drunk as a skunk and drove her off a bridge -- then waited until he had sobered up to report to the police.

All right, it would most likely have been manslaughter -- but still, where's your outrage?

Date:

06/11/03

Time:

06:49 PM

Comments

Don't you understand Democrats are incapable of having outrage about anything another Democrat does. Not Feinstein and her husband, not Teddy Kennedy killing a young girl, not a Democratic President having an affair with an intern and lying about it under oath. Remember, they are the party that stands for killing unborn children.

They are hippocrits. Thank God the American people are slowly becoming aware of it. BTW, we don't care what the french think.

Date:

06/13/03

Time:

10:40 AM

Comments

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0604-01.htm

"These corporate-embracing conservatives are not working for what's best for democracy, for America, or for the interests of "We, The People." They are explicitly interested in a singular goal: Profits and the power to maintain them. Under control, the desire for profit can be a useful thing, as 200 years of American free enterprise have shown.

But unrestrained, as George Soros warns us so eloquently, it will create monopoly and destroy democracy. The new conservatives are systematically dismantling our governmental systems of checks and balances; of considering the public good when regulating private corporate behavior; of protecting those individuals, small businesses, and local communities who are unable to protect themselves from giant corporate predators. They want to replace government of, by, and for We, the People, with a corporate feudal state, turning America's citizens into their vassals and serfs.

Only a public revolt in disgust over this unconscionable behavior will stop these new conservatives from turning America into a corporate-based clone of Mussolini's feudal vision. As Longfellow reminds us, "In the hour of darkness and peril and need/The people will waken and listen to hear.."

It is again that hour, and now is the time for we, the rabble, to re-awaken our fellow citizens."

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," and the host of a nationally syndicated daily talk show. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Date:

06/13/03

Time:

10:55 AM

Comments

One writer on this message board asked me specifically to say somethng that "makes sense" about the country I've lived in for 36 years. France. OK, I will. Here's an article I wrote back in February of 2002. There's a lot more I could say, and will, if you're really interested. But here's my old article for starters: Matildq

11 February 2002 ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT?

Trying to explain our Electoral College system to non-Americans should be easy. I understand how it works. But trying to justify it, especially after the debacle of our last presidential election, is quite another thing. During the period of more than a month after Election Day in 2000, much was made of the principle that "every vote must be counted". In a democratic society, that notion sounds logical. Only that isn't how it works!! Every vote must and should BE counted, but under our system of the Electoral College, every vote does NOT count!!

Let's take a hypothetical situation: California has the most votes in the Electoral College.....54. The next largest number is New York with 23. A close election in a state like California....as close, perhaps, as it was in Florida in 2000, could swing all 54 votes to one candidate. Let's assume that there are 20 million people voting, and that the results are almost even, with a difference of 1000 votes. That would mean that 10,001,000 voters will see their candidate elected, and 9,990,000 will see their candidate defeated. Think about that.........almost 10 million people whose votes do NOT count!!! In one state!!!

Unlikely, you say? But it did happen. Millions of people in Florida saw their votes go down the drain in the last presidential election....and the presidency of the United States with them. Many people claim that there was dirty work afoot in Florida during that election, and from all indications, that's a distinct possibility. But even if everything was totally on the up and up...no cheating by anyone....even then, a close election, under our system of the Electoral College, could result in almost half of the votes not counting. All the votes would BE counted, but nearly half of them would NOT count in deciding who won the election. And this sort of close election could happen in more than one state. Think of the millions of votes that would be discarded if that happened!! You can easily see why I was having such difficulty justifying our system to the Europeans.

The big question is: How do we remedy such a flagrantly unfair situation? Should we eliminate the Electoral College altogether? Or, as some feel, should we distribute the Electoral College votes proportionately. But if we do that, why wouldn't it be easier to simply base the results of the election on the popular vote?

The French, with all their faults, have what I think is a very good system. They vote on two consecutive Sundays. In the first round, there may be eight or ten candidates from various parties. If one of those should get a simple majority of the votes, the election is immediately decided. Apparently, this has never happened. Even De Gaulle who was an extremely popular president only managed 47% in the first of the two weeks. So if no one candidate gets a majority, then there is a run-off election the following Sunday between the two candidates with the highest number of votes. This results in all sorts of coalitions and compromises between winning and losing candidates.....the losing candidates advising their supporters to vote for one or the other of the runners-off. And in the legislative elections, there is even a provision for proportional representation for minority parties in the National Assembly, and this is not a bad thing.

Another excellent feature of the French elections is that there are NO television ads. All the candidates are accorded television time based on the weight of their previous votes. And the candidates are given this television time which is used by them to speak about what they stand for. They do NOT downgrade other candidates!! There is a national commission that controls their time on the air, so no one candidate can take more time than he's entitled to. And this time is not bought, it's given to the candidates and paid for by the nation.

The United States is a wonderful country, but let's face it!! We don't have the best answers to everything. Our voting system is one of the things we should reexamine. Maybe we should have a national referendum to propose various possible changes. What do you think? Somehow we must come up with a solution that guarantees that our voting system is clean and fair.... and that no vote is wasted. Maybe, even in our great country, there's some room for improvement.

Matilda Lipscomb matilda@letstalksense.com

Date:

06/13/03

Time:

01:04 PM

Comments

Matilda, thank you for your thoughts and for your “attempt” to comment on the sickness that now affects your adopted country. But, as I read your essay – it seems to be just another effort to criticize the US of A and an attempt to demonstrate how much more “civilized” is the country of modern France. You say nothing about the paralysis of their central government or the anarchy that reigns in the streets.

About your continued dissatisfaction with our electoral system:

If you studied American history you would have learned that the Constitution was forged by compromise between the large and small states. The decision to have a bi-cameral legislature, with one body comprised of representatives apportioned by the respective populations of the States and another body to which all states would elect two members was called “The Great Compromise”.

This same type of mechanism was later adopted for the “direct” election of the president and vice president (originally, these officers were selected by the Congress).

This system actually works very well – we’ve not seen fit to change it for a couple of hundred years. The reason it works is that it ensures that the concerns of the smaller states will be taken into account – that the larger states cannot simply dominate the smaller by dint of their size. It means that the folks who seek to become President are obliged to wander across our great country and listen to the common folk.

If we allowed a simple majority to elect the President, New York and California and Florida could vote and the rest of us could stay home on Election Day – for all the difference it would make.

By your logic, we should eliminate the Senate – surely this is as egregious a situation as the Electoral College. But we won’t, because it seems to work well enough for the US of A to become the greatest country in the world. But you wouldn’t know about that.

(The pernicious arrangement to count for three-fifths of the slave population to determine the allocation of representatives by the states was called “The Three-Fifths Compromise”).

Date:

06/13/03

Time:

02:33 PM

Comments

More about France.....I understand completely the reasons for the electoral college, but frankly today, with TV, the personal visits of candidates to the smaller states is hardly an issue any more. You had nothing to say about the matter of the two consecutive votes and the no need for campaign funds. Surely you must realize that these monstrous contributions actually BUY our government!! The huge corporations lobby for what they want and "buy" the senators and representatives that will give them what they want. This is totally unfair to the less privileged folks who have at least as much right to be represented, don't you agree? We won't even begin to mention the corporate control of the American media whose sworn duty it is to investigate and report the truth. Another thing, France is NOT a socialist country. It is a capitalistic country, but not at all like what we have in America. I call the French system "compassionate" capitalism. EVERYONE has total medical coverage, and those who can't afford it pay nothing. Old people are tenderly cared for. I could go on and on, but I'm afraid what I'm telling you is beyond the imagination of the average American. American capitalism is greedy and predatory.Fifty million people (mostly children) in the US of A with NO medical coverage. Old citizens who have to decide between food and medications. And the US is the richest country in the history of the world!!!!!

I hope you'll read all this with an open mind and let me know your thoughts. Matilda

Date:

06/13/03

Time:

04:54 PM

Comments

Government funding of medical care (medicaid and medicare) pay 50-75% of the current fees of most physicians. If medical care was "provided for all" by the government, these physicians would certainly be paid at that rate (or lower since more money would have to be spent by the government).

After investing decades of study and taking huge loans to become physicians, are they to be told they must take care of the indigent and elderly for free? Are they supposed to take a 50% to 75% cut in pay?

I couldn't see the law profession or any other professsion agree to someting like that. What if you were told today that you were going to be paid 50 - 75% less for the same work and there was nothing you could do about it? Why limit physician income without limiting the amount they pay for malpractice insurance. This would lead to limiting awards for malpractice cases.

I also take offense to Matilda's quote in talking about the United States, "monstrous contributions actually BUY our government!! ".

Matilda, your government is the government of France. That is the place you have chosen to live your life.

It would also waste less space on this page if you could provide the link to your 2002 article attacking America rather than posting the entire thing.

Date:

06/13/03

Time:

08:03 PM

Comments

Matilda, please forgive what might become a longish post, but I’ll try to answer you.

1. If “The personal visits of candidates to the smaller states is hardly an issue any more”, then why do the pols make them? And you make my point: were it not for the Electoral College, the pols wouldn’t bother with the little states and California and New York and Florida would elect the President and the rest of us could just as well stay at home.

2. I think the idea that there is too much money in politics is ludicrous. I think there is far too little. It’s the incumbents who seek to limit campaign funds so as to perpetuate themselves in office. We don’t need less money, we need more disclosure. France is governed by a self-styled elite who themselves entitled to slop at the public trough.

3. Corporations cannot legally contribute to candidates. The biggest lobbying groups by far are the unions. They supply both money and manpower to the Democrat party. This despite the will of their ranks and file who are about evenly split between R’s and D’s.

4. Corporate control of American media? You sound like Ralph Nader (who’s grown rich from his investments in corporate America). Virtually all radio, television, and newspaper media is owned by corporate entities – and virtually all of them are public companies – their stock is traded and regulated. People (like Ralph Nader) own these companies. How can they be “monstrous”?

5. The less privileged folks are more than ably represented by the Democrats who seek to keep them permanently dependent upon them for handouts.

6. France has been governed by socialists since De Gaulle left office. Le Pen was interesting, at least.

7. You may call the French system, compassionate. I call it bankrupt. The little bit of rioting you have going on now (not the lynching of Jews – the other one – the strikes) is small potatoes compared to what we’ll see when the government runs out of options to keep the leaky boat afloat. There aren’t enough workers to pay the taxes France needs to support its welfare state. Sure, you may love the benefits but they’re unsustainable. France and Germany and Belgium are broke.

8. You may decry America and capitalism (we’re really very far from being pure capitalists), but our system works. Despite paying all of the costs to defeat the Soviets, we’ve grown to be by far the biggest economy in the world. France and Germany, despite paying almost nothing for their defense for the past forty years are nearly broke.

9. There’s a difference between medical care and medical insurance. No one in the US of A does without emergency medical care. You libs are really confused about this. I buy insurance to protect my assets. Insurance companies book my bet that I’ll get sick and hope to make a profit. If you don’t have assets, why do you need insurance? I don’t know anything about the state of healthcare in France. I do know that the systems are beyond repair in Canada and in the UK. Care may be free – but you can’t get it. Canadians queue up at our border to pay for medical procedures here in the states because they’re just unavailable to the north.

Date:

06/15/03

Time:

06:11 PM

Comments

For Matilda, an essay that puts perspective on your search for scandal about GWB - The Democratic search for scandal by Ben Shapiro

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030612.shtml

Date:

06/16/03

Time:

07:49 AM

Comments

The Truth About Bush’s “Lies” An attack from the Left misfires. From the June 16, 2003, issue of National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp

Date:

06/16/03

Time:

02:51 PM

Comments

Bush security aid quits to go work for Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.

"Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox. "Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting.Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A

Date:

06/16/03

Time:

10:01 PM

Comments

I read the article -- this guy Rand Beers seems to be a little loopy. John Kerry???

Date:

06/16/03

Time:

10:41 PM

Comments

A little loopy?!? "The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing."

He needs mental health counseling.

Date:

06/16/03

Time:

10:55 PM

Comments

In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism.

I just pre ordered my copy of "Treason" to be shipped on June 24th. Matilda, you can order one here:

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

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

03:06 AM

Comments

America Has Descended Into Madness By Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

The Independent (London) -- June 16, 2003

http://argument.independent.co.uk/

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

03:50 AM

Comments

The chasm opening between what George W. Bush claimed was true about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and what U.S. forces are discovering on the ground is so huge it defies the Vietnam-era phrase of "credibility gap." In this case, it's more as if Bush is leading the nation to a new era, beyond the Age of Reason.

For the full story on this Brave New World where reality is whatever Bush says it is, go to Consortiumnews.com at http://www.consortiumnews.com

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

04:03 AM

Comments

Now, after two months of searching by the most skilled teams in the military, not a single piece of solid evidence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs in Iraq has been found. The top 87 sites identified by U.S. Central Command have turned up only vacuum cleaners, a swimming pool for Iraq's Olympic team, and a license plate factory.(5) Move on

Sure, we got rid of a brutal dictator...Great. No proof of where he is or when he might come back, but we did "liberate" an oppressed people. There are plenty of other brutal dictators on this planet (not sitting on a "sea of oil" though. How many wars must we fight for this Bush Administration???? Matilda

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

06:38 AM

Comments

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/opinion/17KRUG.htm

  Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

  The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security ‹ though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

  It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric ‹ and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny ‹ lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.  

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

07:05 AM

Comments

Matilda,

I think we should fight to overthrow all of the brutal dictators in the world. Would you rather we let them go unchecked?

By the way, I'd call the mobile biological chemical labs "solid evidence".

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

12:54 PM

Comments

America's Rebuilding of Iraq is in Chaos, Say British By Peter Foster The Telegraph

Tuesday 17 June 2003

<The American-led reconstruction effort in Iraq is "in chaos" and suffering from "a complete absence of strategic direction", a very senior British official in Baghdad has told The Telegraph.

The comments paint a grim picture of American incompetence and mismanagement as the Coalition Provisional Authority struggles to run post-Saddam Iraq.

"This is the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for," the official said yesterday.

The source revealed that Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, had "fewer than 600" staff under his control to run a country the size of France in which the civil infrastructure was on the point of collapse.

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

01:30 PM

Comments

This is a rather long, but extremely enlightening article about the Bush lies concerning 9/11. I would urge each of you to read it ALOUD...3 times... and then forward it to everyone you know. And please don't write to call me a dirty liberal who is out to malign our noble president. Bush has been fighting an investigation into the 9/11 attacks from the very beginning, after saying on that first day that he would "call for a full-scale investigation into the tragedy". Between this and the outright LIES he used to get us to attack Iraq, even you enthusiastic Bush supporters MUST begin to question his integrity. I know it isn't easy to admit being wrong about someone you've trusted, but sometimes, that is exactly what it will take to recover our decency. Matilda

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

This is a lengthy, well-documented article based on 9/11 Commission results documenting the lies from the Bush administration about 9/11, with all of the proof that those were lies. There's further proof that NORAD failed to respond according to standard operating procedures to the highjackings, and continues to tell wildly conflicting stories about it. Read the article, save it, and forward it to everyone you know. Margie

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

07:24 PM

Comments

Collected Silliness:

“America has descended into madness” - Apparently the author of this Guardian piece doesn’t know that Hawaii one of these United States.

Matilda doesn’t seem to have read these articles: The Truth About Bush’s “Lies” An attack from the Left misfires. From the June 16, 2003, issue of National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp and

For Matilda, an essay that puts perspective on your search for scandal about GWB - The Democratic search for scandal by Ben Shapiro

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030612.shtml

else she might halt her parade of silly charges. (Does Matilda still blame JFK for Vietnam? Did she ever? I think not).

Whomever posted the vitriol about some house subcommittee going into closed session and blamed it on the Bush administration really ought to take a civics lesson. Congress is a co-equal branch of our federal government – separate and apart from the executive branch (which IS the Bush Administration for the next five years).

Whomever excerpted the UK Telegraph article on the “chaos” in Iraq ought to read Mark Steyn’s commentary on his recent travels across this country – also from the UK Telegraph:

“The British wrest defeat from the jaws of victory” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

07:32 PM

Comments

"Civilization" in France?

"City cleaners are spraying streets in the French port of Marseille with lemon grass perfume to get rid of the stench from piles of rubbish that have been festering under a hot sun for two weeks," Reuters reports. Marseille trash men went on strike for two weeks, objecting to a government pension-reform plan. Now they're "battling to clear up an estimated 8,000 tonnes of garbage whose stench has attracted rats in droves."

Date:

06/18/03

Time:

09:28 PM

Comments

On Tuesday I read a number of articles where France was actively assisting Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group here and here. Then it was followed by reports that the French were cracking down on Iranian anti-Mullah "terrorists" here and here (the quotes are rented cheap from Reuters).

One could say that the French government has become the ally of tyranny everywhere. Winds has noted this previously here, here, and here.

This article, The Death of France? Part II By Jamie Glazov from FrontPageMagazine.com | June 10, 2003 makes the case that they are. This passage from the symposium fits this pattern very well:

Roucaute: In listening to everyone in this symposium, I must agree with Madelin and Millière. France is a very sick nation. Sometimes I think that it’s only if France pays the full price for its positions that some real change will come. It’s not really the fault of the French people; they receive very bad information and almost all the books they can find in bookstores are anti-American. It’s the fault of the politicians who have no courage and explain nothing. It’s the fault of journalists who prefer Islam to America because the majority of them have been leftists in the sixties when they were young. They have not changed, they are just older.

The sickness of France has been largely created by people who want only one thing: to destroy freedom and to destroy Western civilization. The only book describing France as it is now has been written by Guy Milliere and it was hard for him to find a publisher in France. I want to write a book about all this. I cannot find a publisher myself in France. That fact alone is very meaningful.

Jean-François Revel: As I said in the last book I published, France is the prey of an anti-American obsession. For the French, Americans are the enemy they have to hate in every circumstance. They have to hate Americans because Americans are successful, because Americans are powerful, because the French prefer resentment to achievement. They are so obsessed by their hatred of the United States they do not see anymore the real dangers confronting France. It’s a very dangerous situation. I do not know how we could go out of this situation. I honestly don’t know if it is even still possible.

My sense of the matter: France is exiting Western civilization, stage left.From The Death of France? Part II

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

08:52 AM

Comments

Democrats are notorious for lying to scare the elderly and poor. This is especially evident in election years to gain votes from the poor and elderly.

Here is a quote from Newt Gingrich talking about the bureaucracy that stands between seniors and Medicare. Seniors hate it, so Newt wanted to give them the choice of bypassing it - and when they did, this bureaucracy would "wither on the vine" leaving Medicare healthier than ever.

Newt: "What do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it - voluntarily."

Now watch the video below to see how Democrats are outright lying to scare the elderly. Matilda, are you proud of your chosen party for doing this?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/15/ads.jackson/wither.mov

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

12:05 PM

Comments

That's an old trick of the Democrats. Take a quote out of context and then count on their partner, the liberal media, to run with it.

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

12:06 PM

Comments

Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 by the Seattle Weekly Impeachable Offense by Geov Parrish

FINALLY, AND FAR too late, national media are discovering that the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq was a combination of willfully gross exaggerations and flat-out lies. For weeks, various recently leaked or released documents have confirmed that there has never been much, if any, evidence in American and British files that even plausibly pointed to an Iraqi threat of either nuclear or other banned weapons, or Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. Intelligence analysts in both governments did not believe such threats existed.

The new revelations, combined with an utter lack of post-invasion evidence (weather-balloon trailers notwithstanding) that such claims were ever true, are an enormous political scandal in Britain. However, their content merely confirms what opponents of the proposed invasion claimed since last summer: that most of the endless variety of Bush assertions "proving" either Iraqi WMDs or links to Al Qaeda were, on their face, preposterous.

This wasn't simply an abstract policy debate; it was a matter of the Bush administration's swearing to Congress, America, and the world that the threat to U.S. security—the sole legal justification for invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq—was based on evidence that did not, in fact, exist. The Bush administration made such assertions repeatedly, for more than half a year, and it continues to do so. Such assertions are not simply a typically appalling campaign of Bush administration lies. They are an impeachable offense.

For months, various, mostly liberal and progressive critics of Bush have been whipping up impeachment calls. Such calls have been delusional, boiling down, essentially, to the fact that Bush's critics hate a number of his policies. There were no pending or existing corruption indictments; no evidence of criminal wrongdoing; and no conceivable political route by which the votes for impeachment could be mustered. It was a nonstarter.

Until now.

SHOULD THE EVIDENCE hold up—and it will—the Bush administration's lies constitute either an unwitting or witting effort to put American soldiers in harm's way, guaranteeing the deaths of some. America's military was deployed for reasons Bush and his entire foreign-policy apparatus either knew or should have known were false.

They did so to launch a war whose unprovoked nature was a sharp departure from international law and norms. Bush claimed the legal authority for his invasion was last October's congressional vote. On the eve of that vote, in a major speech aimed at Congress, Bush claimed satellite photos gave irrefutable evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear-weapons program. He intoned, mere days after his intelligence agencies put the date at 2010, that Iraq would be able to use such weapons within a year. "Facing clear evidence of peril," Bush told Congress, America, and the world, "we cannot wait for the final proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Plenty of the administration's own experts had told the White House this was nonsense. From August to March, Bush and his team insisted, first, that they had evidence which actually did not exist. Then they presented evidence that was either long out-dated or simply invented. In doing so, Bush and his top officials caused the unnecessary deaths of a lot of U.S. soldiers.

The outrage thus far is coming from the media and from the British example. With a few honorable exceptions, such as Sen. Robert Byrd and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, it is not coming from congressional Democrats. Given Democratic spinelessness, no attack on the fitness of George W. Bush and his band of neocon zealots can take hold without widespread public anger, including that of independents and at least some Republicans.

The use of duplicity to lead soldiers to their graves should inspire exactly such outrage. The unprovoked invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq should never have happened. Instead, the White House claimed that Bush spent several months agonizing over whether to launch an invasion, one he had already approved.

BEFORE AND AFTER his secret decision, his administration's claims were largely false. Bush used those claims to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers—along with other coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis, soldier and civilian alike. And he continues his lies.

Iraq is half the size of South Africa, whose banned weapons were found instantly when apartheid ended. Iraq is not, as Bush protests, "a big country"; in two months, American soldiers have exhausted search possibilities. Nor have Iraq's weapons fled the country. Or been found. They have not existed for years. But soldiers died because George W. Bush said they did.

For this egregious abuse of his oath of office, he should be impeached.

© 1998-2003 Seattle Weekly

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

01:04 PM

Comments

Re: The Seattle Weekly?

1. You really ought to post the URL and let interested readers access the contents on their own.

2. You should read these articles: The Truth About Bush’s “Lies” An attack from the Left misfires. From the June 16, 2003, issue of National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp and

and

The Democratic search for scandal by Ben Shapiro

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030612.shtml

3. Do you think it unfair to characterize you and your fellow travelers as propagandists? Do you think if you keep repeating your lies they'll become more belivable? I think you just further marginalize yourselves. The American people know that GWB is an honest man. They know the Democrat's -- to a man -- are power hungry liars.

4. The best predictor of what GWB will do is what he says. (How unlike your hero -- GWB's immediate predecessor).

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

03:12 PM

Comments

While the administration of President George W. Bush is aggressively positioning itself as the world leader in the war on terrorism, some families of the Sept. 11 victims say that the facts increasingly contradict that script. The White House long opposed the formation of a blue ribbon Sept. 11 commission, some say, and even now that panel is underfunded and struggling to build momentum. And, they say, the administration is suppressing a 900-page congressional study, possibly out of fear that the findings will be politically damaging to Bush.

Salon.com

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

06:22 PM

Comments

Assuming the post representing an excerpt from the-nearly-bankrupt Salon.com is what it purports to be, who's the bigger idiot, Salon or the poster?

Let's examine the language therein:

"While the administration of President George W. Bush is aggressively positioning itself as the world leader in the war on terrorism, some families of the Sept. 11 victims say that the facts increasingly contradict that script"

Getting past the silly "script" metaphor -- just whoinhell can the leader against global terrorism be BUT GWB? Matilda? Chirac? Who?

Some families? Gee, should we expect unanimity of thought from ALL of the families of ALL of the victims? Doncha think some of them might have voted for Gore?

"The White House long opposed the formation of a blue ribbon Sept. 11 commission, some say, and even now that panel is underfunded and struggling to build momentum"

If GWB was opposed to it, then how did it get off the ground? And, if it's underfunded -- blame Congress. Unless I was asleep in my civics class, I learned that monies can only be appropriated by an Act of Congress (and all revenue bills must originate in the House).

"And, they say, the administration is suppressing a 900-page congressional study, possibly out of fear that the findings will be politically damaging to Bush."

What's the antecedent for "they" (who say). The blue-ribbon commission? Can't anyone write English? (Certainly not the writers and editors for Salon.com).

And, how-in-hell could the White House suppress a congressional study? Hasn't anyone taken civics? Congress can study anything it pleases and no one can suppress it.

What a pack of morons!

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

06:23 PM

Comments

We attacked Iraq because they refused to comply with UN regulations. It was legal. Period.

The fact that they were devloping and had WMD made everyone feel better about it.

I hope they find a large store of WMD so the Dimocrats can eat still more crow, but I'm sure they would just say they were planted.

It doesn't matter. The US was justified in their invasion of Iraq, the Democrats are trying to make a campaign issue.

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

06:32 PM

Comments

Ohio Truck Driver Pleads Guilty in Plot With Ties to Al Qaeda http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/national/19CND-TERR.html

Gee, maybe the administration IS effectively fighting terrorism?

Date:

06/19/03

Time:

10:17 PM

Comments

Bush told reporters at the end of a meeting in the White House Cabinet Room, "The international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon. Iran would be dangerous if it had a nuclear weapon.

Bush said he had brought the matter of nuclear weapons up with other leaders at the G-8 meeting of industrial powers, plus Russia, earlier this month.

"There was near-universal agreement that we all must work together to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," he said.

The interesting thing here is that politicians say this all the time, but one suspects that this particular fellow means it - and that will unnerve the Unnerved-American community. But why? I thought that nukular proliferation was a bad thing. I remember the 80s; I remember the marches. The posters. The buttons. I believe that giant mocking puppet-heads were deployed to humiliate those who govern nations that possess nukes. So shouldn’t it be a good thing that Iran might have its toybox overturned?

No, no, no, and no again. Bush is obviously suggesting that force might be used to squash Iran’s nuclear threat, and that simply is not the way to go about it. Here’s what you do:

1. Make many speeches about Severe Consequences before various international organizations, preferably in Europe, because the food is incredible and the view out the windows at night is spectacular. The way the lights shine off that river - man, it's something.

2. Let the issue drift off the A-section into the weekly political magazines

3. Use the State Department to pressure Iran into signing some sort of treaty that bans nuclear weapon development in exchange for favorable trade conditions

5. Wait a year, during which you skim a few reviews of “Allah’s Sword: Inside Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program” by Ke Pollack, published 2004. Quell gnawing fear in gut by going on the stump for some campaign appearances - see, people love you! No matter what happens, you’ll be remembered well.

6. Get shaken awake at 3 AM by an aide who says you’re needed in the Situation Room; when you enter you see that one monitor has a picture of a mushroom cloud, and the other has a map of Israel. Crap.

7. Four AM call to the Israeli PM offering sympathy, and threatening to cut off aid if Israel nukes Iran; nine AM press conference that urges restraint, lest the “cycle of violence” begin again. After all, no one knows who was behind the bomb.

8. Demand a Congressional investigation to learn who bungled the intelligence

9. Run for reelection on a platform that includes a call for a new international body to monitor nuclear arms proliferation

Or:

1. Mr. Enrichment Facility, meet Mr. Moab. Mr. Moab, Mr. Enrichment Facility. I’m sure you two have much to discuss, so we’ll just leave you to sort it out.

I’ll take the second option.

What if the mullahs fall before, say, September? The second anniversary of 9/11 would be marked by much general astonishment at what OBL et al began. Two years, three countries. Syria would have its come-to-Issa moment. Kim Il Jong would have to switch to extra-absorbent Depends, since he would probably be wetting himself anew each time he turned on CNN.

James Lileks

Date:

06/21/03

Time:

12:04 PM

Comments

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.

General Wesley Clark | 9/11 Bombshell http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml

Date:

06/21/03

Time:

04:56 PM

Comments

The only "bombshell" Wesley dropped was over Kosovo. Boy we kiiled a lot of civilians, then. Clinton was President, wasn't he?

I am more amused than bemused by you idiots who think the Dim's will get traction by calling GWB a liar. Every time you call into question the wisdom or righteousness of deposing Sadaam you retreat further into permanent minorty status. God for it!!

Date:

06/22/03

Time:

04:21 AM

Comments

Matilda, I was born abroad but now reside legally in the U.S. You were born in the U.S. but by your own admission chose to reside in France for the last 36 years. You devote this space to U.S. politics, and I am curious why, living in France, you consider yourself to have more insight into U.S. events than those of us who choose to live here. As much as I keep up with events back home, I am more in touch with events in the North American continent. Your opinion of U.S. politics is as irrelevant as my view of Indian politics, and I would suggest you consider redirecting your attention to French politics.

Date:

06/22/03

Time:

09:13 AM

Comments

There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!

Date:

06/22/03

Time:

04:21 PM

Comments

I think it's strange that the Democrats and the liberal press are giving President Bush a hard time finding the WMD that Iraq had years to hide in Iraq or in Syria.

They pretty much let Hillary and Bill slide on the Rose Law firm records Hillary had trouble finding it her bedroom.

Guess Bill was the only one sleeping there.

Date:

06/23/03

Time:

06:45 AM

Comments

MAD AS HELL

CHERI DELBROCCO

SQUISHY SOFT 'DEMOCRATS'

Have you heard about the newest political party? You probably saw them, and mistook them for someone else. They are called The Invertebrates. Their symbol is the jellyfish. Dozens of Democrats, especially the leadership, have defected to the Invertebrate Party. Their “I sorta kinda disagree with W” squishiness has made possible the triumph of the fanatical. Their opposition to the agressive rightwing is so spineless, so timid, and so lacking in confidence, it can only be described as cowardly.

Why is the leadership of the Democratic Party so lacking in - well, leadership? Why are they so paralyzed when it comes to mounting any kind of credible challenge to the Bush agenda of war without end and decimation of the economy? Does anyone in the Democratic Party have a single idea which does not mimic the Republican Party? It appears that, collectively, the Democratic Party is struggling hard to straddle the right of center line the Republican Party is straddling, so it makes it impossible to recognize them as anything but Bush-lites.

The Democratic Party may have had all the “moderate” it can stand. There’s nothing “moderate” about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, a larger agenda of fundamentally changing the role of government is taking place in Washington, and no one is doing anything to stop it.

The problem isn’t that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. They are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side - not to mention directly in the middle of mainstream America…

Date:

06/23/03

Time:

07:12 AM

Comments

Democrats are "directly in the middle of mainstream America"?!?!?

I don't think Americans stand for the same thing as Democrats - killing babies, gay and lesbian marriages, increasing taxes and dependance on the government.

"Why are they (Democrats) so paralyzed when it comes to mounting any kind of credible challenge to the Bush agenda of war..."

Because the majority of Americans approve of the actions taken by President Bush against terrorists in Afganistan and Iraq. Being poll driven in their policy making, Democrats know this.

Date:

06/23/03

Time:

08:47 PM

Comments

The Weekly Standard's David Brooks has a smart piece on the Democrats' increasingly distant relationship with reality. "The Democrats . . . look like they're turning into a domestic version of the Palestinians--a group so enraged at their perceived oppressors, and so caught up in their own victimization, that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering," he writes. The explanation:

Whether it is across the ocean or across the aisle, powerlessness corrupts just as certainly as power does. Those on top become overly self-assured, emotionally calloused, dishonest with themselves, and complacent. Those on the bottom become vicious. Sensing that their dignity is perpetually insulted, they begin to see their plight in lurid terms. They exaggerate the power of their foes. They invent malevolent conspiracy theories to explain their unfortunate position. They develop a gloomy and panicked view of the world.

Republicans are suffering from many of the maladies that afflict the powerful, but they have not been driven into their own emotional ghetto because in their hearts Republicans don't feel that powerful. Democrats, on the other hand, do feel powerless. And that is why so many Democratic statements about Republicans resemble European and Middle Eastern statements about America.

Noting that "fury rarely wins elections," Brooks speculates that if the Dems don't get real, and if the economy improves and the war continues to go well, we could soon see a "sharp political shift toward the Republicans."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/820yqhap.asp

Date:

06/25/03

Time:

07:36 AM

Comments

"On March 18, 2003, George Walker Bush said "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities."

The facts do not support George Bush’s or Colin Powell’s statements. These two men testified before all of the people of our great country and the representatives of other nations falsely.

The document that purported to show the connection of Iraq seeking enriched uranium had been declared a forgery long before George Walker Bush uttered those words in his State of the Union Address in January 2003. The "intelligence" documents that Colin Powell waved in the air were plagiarized from the thesis of a college student that was more than twelve years old.

The proof of their statements has been shown to be false in the weeks following George Walker Bush’s "Mission Accomplished" speech from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.

On June 21, 2003, George Walker Bush said "The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed. We are determined to discover the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes,"

That’s a far cry from his earlier testimonies of quantities of WMDs. Now we are looking for papers and documents of past "programs," not actual weapons.

The "mobile biological weapons labs" have been found to be units sold to Iraq by Great Britain for the purpose of inflating artillery balloons with hydrogen.

We have found fertilizer factories, swimming pools and vacuum cleaners.

We have sacrificed the lives of almost two hundred of our best and bravest. We have caused the deaths of approximately 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

We have found no weapons of mass destruction.

We, my friends, have been played for fools. We have been lied to."

Bridget Gibson

(Needless to say, none of this is Bush's fault. Nothing ever is or has been since he's been in office. And yet, I fail to see how he can blame Clinton for these lies. Must be the CIA, right?) Matilda

Date:

06/25/03

Time:

09:43 AM

Comments

S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President¹s Safety For Holding Protest Sign

Brett Bursey goes on trial today for simply holding a sign that read ³No War For Oil² outside a President Bush speech last October. Bursey is being charged with the federal crime of threatening the president¹s safety.

He is believed to be the first protester to ever be arrested on these charges for simply holding a sign.

He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Back in October he was originally charged by the state with trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. But the state dropped the trespassing charges perhaps because they knew the courts would rule in Bursey¹s favor.

In fact they did 33 years ago when he was also arrested at the same airport for protesting Richard Nixon. He was charged with trespassing. Bursey challeneged his arrest and the state Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

But much has changed since then.

After the state dropped the trespassing charges the local US Attorney, Strom Thurmond Jr., filed the much more severe charges of threatening the safety of the president.

The federal charges have not sat well with some members of Congress.

A few weeks ago Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and 10 other members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft condemning the arrest. They wrote: ³This prosecution smacks of the use of the Sedition Acts two hundred years ago to protect the President from political discomfort. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. We urge you to drop this prosecution based so clearly on the political views being expressed by the individual who is being prosecuted.²

Today Brett Bursey goes to trial..... Brett Bursey, South Carolina man charged with threatening the president¹s safety for holding up a sign that read ³No War For Oil² outside a Bush fundraiser.

Note from Matilda.....Who cares what our Constitution "used to say".....Let's by all means protect our great president from any political discomfort !!!!!!!!!

Date:

06/25/03

Time:

04:58 PM

Comments

True Statement:

George Walker Bush said "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over

False Statement:

The "mobile biological weapons labs" have been found to be units sold to Iraq by Great Britain for the purpose of inflating artillery balloons with hydrogen

Again, we invaded Iraq and overthrew their Brutal dictaor (remember the mass graves of thousands of excecuted civilians and the child prisons and torture camps?) because they failed to comply with UN sanctions. All very legal, all stated before invading.

Date:

06/25/03

Time:

05:08 PM

Comments

Matilda, Hypocrisy check. Read this tidbit and tell us if your regard for peaceful protestors was equally insulted at the time:

Federal Judge Turns Back Attempt by Former Philly Mayor and Current DNC Chief to Dismiss Claims

Suit Alleges Rendell Conspired with Teamsters in Beating of Orphan Brother and Sister During Clinton Protest – Beatings By Teamsters Caught On Videotape

(Washington, DC) A federal court judge ruled last week that a libel, assault and battery, and conspiracy lawsuit can proceed concerning the 1998 beating of peaceful anti-Clinton protestors by Teamsters supporting Bill Clinton outside Philadelphia’s City Hall. One of the defendants in the lawsuit is former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell and the current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The decision was recently handed down by Judge Ronald Kaufman. The victims of the beatings (and plaintiffs in the lawsuit) are Don and Teri Adams, orphan brother and sister. They are represented by Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption.

On October 2, 1998, Don and Teri Adams, brother and sister, were severely beaten by Teamsters acting under the direction of powerful Pennsylvania Teamsters boss John Morris, another defendant in the lawsuit. The Adams’ were exercising their First Amendment rights by advocating the impeachment of President Clinton at the side of City Hall, during a Clinton fundraising visit to Philadelphia. The beating was caught by news and other cameras on videotape and was broadcast nationwide. Despite exculpatory videotape and police evidence, Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham prosecuted the victim of the crime, Don Adams, and initially refused to bring any charges against John Morris, whose local union has a history of violence. Citing immunity laws in Pennsylvania, Judge Kaufman dropped Abraham as a defendant. Judicial Watch plans to appeal this aspect of the decision.

Ed Rendell later made comments that allegedly showed his complicity with the attack. His spokesman even joked about the vicious attack, stating that the Adams’ desire to exercise their First Amendment rights was not “a good career choice” vis-a-vis the Teamsters.

“The case will now go forward in the interest of justice. Whether it is Don and Teri Adams, or the Miami neighbors of Elian Gonzalez, who were also beaten, American citizens cannot be subjected to totalitarian state tactics,” commented Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

Date:

06/25/03

Time:

09:30 PM

Comments

Hypocrisy check part 2:

Since Democrats love affirmative action so much, why don't they give Al Sharpton a 20 percentge point headstart over all the white Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Date:

06/26/03

Time:

04:26 AM

Comments

"There is much to admire on American television. It is hard to imagine a long-running British network series as literate as The West Wing or as brilliant and enduring as The Simpsons. But these are a tiny number of programmes at the top of a food chain that is long, bland and tasteless, like the endless fast-food restaurants on the edges of American towns, where Arby's and Denny's, McDonald's and Taco Bell compete for neon attention.

Hours of cloned entertainment jostle with lame comedies and drama-by-numbers. Every hour is crammed full of commercials, encouraging a form of television attention deficit disorder. In this environment, Americans watch anything. An eating contest, The Chicken Wing Bowl, attracted 20,000 stadium spectators. Never one to miss a trick, Fox has run a televised food-guzzling contest, The Glutton Bowl.

But it is on news and current affairs that American TV is shown at its most dispiriting. No nation needs independent and impartial media more than the US, a sprawling and diverse democracy in which only 16% of people hold passports.

Yet during the Iraq conflict the problem wasn't just the US flag fluttering in the corner of the screens or the loose language from embedded reporters using "we"; it was also that much of the coverage, particularly on the cable channels, could have been written and produced by the White House."

Read the entire article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4695099,00.html

Date:

06/26/03

Time:

07:04 AM

Comments

"much of the coverage, particularly on the cable channels, could have been written and produced by the White House"

The Guardian complaining of bias in the press, now THAT is a pot calling the kettle black. Everyone complains of bias, but that is what has popularized alternate sources such as talk radio (i.e. Rush Limbaugh - eat your heart out) and the internet.

For a little diversion, this is a site that has gathered links to some of the vitriol from the Palestinan press. I would recommend looking at some of the cartoons from some of the Arab newspapers to get a good insight of how our peace loving Palestinian brothers really think.

http://swansat.com/wpwelty/commentary/2002/2002_1229.htm

For the lovers of intrigue, here is a link, as irrefutable as some I have read on this board, detailing proof that ties the September 11 2001 attacks on America to the Oklahoma City bombing. Too bad Bush was not president at the time, we could have tied him in on that too.

http://www.phillytalkradioonline.com/davis/crogan2.html

Date:

06/27/03

Time:

05:36 PM

Comments

A note to Republicans and timid Democrats:

“Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” – Michael Rivero

Date:

06/27/03

Time:

06:09 PM

Comments

From a never-described-as timid independent:

We're now more than two years past the lying and corruption of Clinton, and I think we're healing nicely

Date:

06/27/03

Time:

06:12 PM

Comments

CANBERRA, Australia - The Australian government on Thursday branded multilateral forums such as the United Nations as "ineffective and unfocused" and said its future foreign policy would increasingly rely on "coalitions of the willing" like the one that waged war in Iraq. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer also said that in Canberra's view, other nation's sovereignty was "not absolute."

Gee, maybe GWB's common sense is catching (but not in France).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story

Date:

06/27/03

Time:

06:20 PM

Comments

Sabine Herold, 21, has been called France's answer to Margaret Thatcher. She is a political science student, very beautiful and speaks perfect English. She has also just become the most famous 21-year-old in France.

Dubbed France's Lady Thatcher by the newspapers, Mademoiselle Herold has been leading the rallies against the unions who have been crippling her country. Standing on a telephone box in her pearl earrings and high heels, she addresses crowds of 80,000, urging them to rise up against the striking teachers, Metro workers, rubbish collectors and air traffic controllers who are ruining people's lives. With her student friends, she has set up an organisation: Liberte J'Ecris Ton Nom, which has thousands of members, demanding that France reforms.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/06/26/ftsab26.xml

Date:

06/27/03

Time:

06:31 PM

Comments

Kennedy: "I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." You just can't make this stuff up:

As sometimes happens with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), he let his mouth race ahead of his brain Wednesday night at a gathering of Young Democrats at the Washington nightspot Acropolis. After presidential candidate Howard Dean spoke, Kennedy delivered an impassioned peroration against President Bush's tax cut. We hear that Kennedy told the crowd: "I don't need Bush's tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." With that he got the audience's attention -- the dropping-jaws kind. "He droned on and on, frequently mentioning how much better the candidates would sound the more we drank," a witness told us. He's been hanging out with Uncle Ted.

"Finally, he had to be stopped by a DNC volunteer." Kennedy's spokesman, Ernesto Anguilla, told us yesterday: "He was talking to the crowd; it was a rally-the-troops kind of speech about the tax cut. He was energizing the crowd and got caught up in it and used an unfortunate word, which he regrets using. . . . And no one pulled him off the stage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37316-2003Jun26.html

Date:

06/28/03

Time:

07:36 AM

Comments

" America should never have gone to war with Irak, it was the job of the inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction, but now that the troops are there and the country in shambles, the government should see to it that Irak be rebuilt and preferably by independent contractors, not friends of Bush and Cheney."

O.L.

"

Date:

06/28/03

Time:

07:39 AM

Comments

Get facts straight before crying 'liar'

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030627.shtml

Date:

06/28/03

Time:

08:12 AM