George W. Bush has some explaining to do. Following a series of discredited attacks on John Kerry’s war record by a group with extensive connections to the Bush campaign, the president’s own service, or lack thereof, in the Texas and Alabama National Guard is poised again to become a campaign issue. On September 5, the Associated Press reported that Freedom… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (76)Page 1 of 1 pagesThis is the silliest piece of journalism I have ever seen. Its as if the author wants readers to believe that documents that could never been produced in 1972-73 are valid. Its as if the author expect his readers to be fools.
Everyone who used a computer before 1990 know the score with the forgeries. The contents of this article show how dim agenda biased journalism is despite the fact that better facts are commonly know.
I would suggest to the author to find a new profession, as readers expect truthful writing even if its going to biased.
Posted by bob trafello on Sep 13, 2004 at 12:45 AM Someone is asleep at the wheel here. Not surprising, though. I’ll be interested in reading the In These Times article about the forgeries that fooled Dan Rather. Will there be such an article?
Posted by Jon on Sep 13, 2004 at 6:03 AM First-rate piece of journalism.
It continues to amaze how quintessentially manipulated Bushies have become: all too willing to believe the unsubstantiated when it comes to the opponent of their little boy king, and none too willing to believe the substantiated when it comes to George “Is Our Children Learning” Bush. Another glaring contradiction Bushies have shut their eyes to is the fact that Bush previously said he would have gladly served in Vietnam, but on his Gurad paperwork, in the section where it asks if you volunteer or don’t volunteer to serve overseas, he checked “No”. Kind of hard to serve in Vietnam if you’re not overseas, huh?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with Bush having gotten into the Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam. Like the current Iraq war, the Vietnam war was needless and not worth a single American life. However, I have a problem with Bush jumping ahead of others on the waiting list thanks to bigwigs pulling strings for him. What of the person Bush knocked off the list? Did he have to go to Vietnam? Did he get killed or maimed for life? This is the part that sticks in my craw.
Again, super article that relies on fact, not conjecture. After all, we all know that “inconvenient facts” are a toe-the-line, head-in-the-sand Bushie’s worst enemy.
Posted by Kevin Collins on Sep 13, 2004 at 6:04 AM Keep these articles coming! We need to in order to lift the blinders off so many people.
Posted by Terri on Sep 13, 2004 at 7:19 AM Can we talk about something else already?
I dont care about the color of Lacy Petersons panties. I dont care if Michael Jackson Screwed some little boys and I so dont care about Bush snorting coke and missing his gaurd duty.
Instead of shedding light on his failure as a texas gaurdsman, how about we shed light on his failures as commander in chief starting in 2000.
Lots of boneheads think we actually found WMD,s in Iraq therefore the invasion and occupation is justified. How anyone got that idea is beyond me. Maybe its because the press (that includes you In These Times) is more worried about this petty little bullshit than reporting something IMPORTANT like oh I dont know, how about North Korea,s nuclear program.
Did they test a bomb the other day? I look all over the internet and nothing. But if I want to know what John Kerry’s favorite sport is I can find a hundred articles. PATHETIC!!!
Posted by Shawn P Murphy on Sep 13, 2004 at 7:37 AM Jack Parker wrote:
-- Biased propaganda. You are not a jounalist. --
Biased? Undoubtedly.
Propaganda? If you’ve got something to dispute each and every one of the points and statistics the writer has presented here, please don’t be shy. But to automatically be dismissive of them just because they make the little boy king look bad reeks of myopia.
Not a journalist? Heh! A Bushie’s definition of a real “journalist” seems to be: someone who reports nothing but positive things about Dubious Dumbya and ignores those dastardly inconvenient facts that reflect negatively upon him.
(By the way, I’m a native, lifelong Texas Democrat who saw how Bush screwed up this state during his unctuous years of governor and have seen him applying that same unctuousness to the U.S. right from the very get-go of his dubiously-awarded presidency.)
Posted by Kevin Collins on Sep 13, 2004 at 8:05 AM I agree with Mr. Murphy and wish the media would spend less time on Bush’s failings regarding the NTL Gaurd and report the litany of failures he has made right before our bewildered eyes since his takeover of the country.
The NTL Gaurd info is only relevant as an example of how Bush has lied about his service and ok, establish that, and move on to his and his administration’s current obfuscations, deceptions and out-right lies.
There should be more outrage of the cost of this war; not just the billions but the thousands of lives lost...for what?
Bruce A. Morgan
Posted by Bruce A. Morgan on Sep 13, 2004 at 8:13 AM Time to move on folks. Not that Bush ducking responsibility is a good thing but why not write about the real failures and the pardoxes of the Bush presidency -lower taxes while increasing military spending. No child left behind while underfunding education.
“god” in the whitehouse while soldiers are needlessly dying.
No healthcare solution
Free ride for the drug industry to produce ‘me-too’ drugs while making disgusting amounts of money (remember the 10 big drug companies in the fortune 500 made more profits than the remaining fortune 490 combined)…
Posted by Mark D on Sep 13, 2004 at 9:37 AM To Jack,how can DOCUMENTED FACTS be ‘biased propaganda’?if you’re not willing weigh the facts to find the truth,regardless of whether or not they support your pre-concieved notions,then you are a fool and will always be fooled. It seems to me that the real issue here is whether a man,who when faced with the realities of war and the possibility of his own death,used his ‘special privilege to hide from that reality and possibility.How can a man order others to their possible death when he was’nt willing to face that possibility himself? Bush is like a little boy playing war,but unfotunately,he’s playing it with real solders,and real solders are dying in a war that has no clear purpose and no end.We need a leader who better understands the costs and concequences of war,and won’t risk our brothers and sisters,our sons and daughters unless real need demands.A man who has personally faced the realities of war would be better suited to lead our country and our armed forces in the years to come. I’m no real fan of John Kerry, but he’s getting my vote on nov. 2
Posted by mike on Sep 13, 2004 at 11:30 AM The people and press of the United States Of America seem to be increasingly hung up on the moral and personal aspects of politicians lives as opposed to their ability to do the job. Please call to mind the Clinton Whitewater and Lewinski inquisitions, which occured while in other functioning democracies (france or germany), politicians and heads of states were able to get away with having extra-marital affairs as long as they were getting the job done. If anyone cares to remember how in depth and degrading the Clinton investigative intrusions were (thanks for nothing ken!) I think that we’ll all agree that we still have a lot of leeway to investigate dubyas military record....if you can call it that. Why should he get any better treatment than Clinton did?
p.s. remeber that he was pro vietnam war!
Posted by Warner on Sep 13, 2004 at 1:15 PM EXCUSE ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t a deserter, someone who leaves his or her post during a time of war?
Why wasn’t bush jailed as a deserter?
Why was he not “booted” from the service and given a dishonorable discharge?
Maybe he should be sent to prison now that history has caught-up with him!!!!
Good men died, and this deserter left his unit during a time of war!!!!!!!!!
A disgrace to the flag!!!!!!!!
Carl
Posted by Carl on Sep 13, 2004 at 3:05 PM Jack,
It appears that you have been watching Fox News too much - Biased propaganda is not something Democrats make up to take a pop at Bush & Co; it is deliberately misleading, UNTRUTHFUL information designed to create a particular effect in the receiver of said information e.g. Fear - ‘Yes we believe Al Queda will attack shortly;look out,it seems an Al Queda attack is imminent;We have it on good authority that Al Queda will attack America over the Superbowl/Thansgiving/Christmas/Your Kids birthday (whichever scares the bejeezus out of you most) and so on.
Alls I know is that if there was a hint of this under the Clinton administration (and believe me I’m no fan of Slick Bill)it would have been dealt with a bit more seriously than GWBs month long holiday.
P.S. I dont know why people Give the Pres such a hard time for all the breaks he takes, surely as long as Rummy and Cheney are in the White House, the REAL LEADERS are there (Minus the Carlyle/Halliburton Axis of Weevils)
Posted by Ian C on Sep 14, 2004 at 5:56 AM We need to cut to the chase--all this crap aside, I’m not voting for Bush for one reason--and it’s THE reason....
Leadership? Video of an aide telling our “president” that “the country is under attack.” Our president’s reaction? HE SAT THERE.
He choked. Even I would have gotten UP. He SAT there. What a brave leader.
Posted by Grace on Sep 14, 2004 at 7:03 AM Do you understand how stupid we look when the left is caught forging documents? How dumb do you think the public is?
We can’t afford another 4 years of Bush. Yet this constant Vietnam crap has no put Georgie ahead in Ohio, Florida - even New Jersey!
I’m really beginning to think that Progressives are becoming retarded when it comes to elections.
GET A CLUE. MOVE ON. WRITE ABOUT SOMETHINE MEANINGFUL THAT WON’T BACKFIRE.
Posted by Bob on Sep 14, 2004 at 8:41 AM Grace, what did you expect him to do? Get up, take off his suit to expose his Superman uniform and fly to intercept those planes? What would have changed if he had gotten up in those few minutes?
Would we have bombed Afghanistan sooner? Come on, what if he got up and made a decision at that moment to invade Iraq or Iran? Would you have supported that?
You people don’t know what you want. On one hand you want a decisive leader, yet when he makes a decisive decision to kick some ass, you call him a cowboy. Quit your whining and suck it up for the next 4 years, because Kerry’s swift boat is sinking fast!!!
Posted by Truth on Sep 14, 2004 at 8:43 AM What did I expect him to do? What would YOU do if someone came up to you and said your home was under attack?? H-m-m? Would you, ah, GET UP? The TRUTH is, he had no idea WHAT to do until somebody told him. It was sad to watch as well as embarrassing.
Posted by Grace on Sep 14, 2004 at 9:50 AM I have not read nor heard any definitive information on whether the documents presented by 60 minutes are forged or not. Just a lot of accusations as we should have expected from the propronents of the president.
The CBS people were not just out of high school and unaware of the attacks they would get once they went ahead with their broadcast.
We can move on to the more immediate questions regarding this president’s ability to lead the country and leave the Vietnam era questions alone because there is so much evidence as to his incompetence and the death toll continues to mount
as a result to his most grevious example…
Posted by Bruce A. Morgan on Sep 14, 2004 at 9:57 AM First of all, as far as the forgery story goes, there is still no conclusive evidence that the CBS Killian docs are computer-generated fakes. There is ample evidence to counter so-called forensic experts as to the the typeface, superscript characters, and proportional spacing issues.
It has already been demonstrated by some online sleuths that IBM did, INDEED, produce a 60s-70s era typewriter that could do ALL of these things. In addition, CBS had the documents vetted by its own experts before going public. After all, it’s hard to imagine the network that caved-in to pressure about its Reagan miniseries coming forward with such controversial documents without having them thoroughly checked in advance.
Whether or not these are fakes (and, true, it would be a sad state affairs if that proves to be the case), that FACT remains that Bush used his family influence to avoid active duty, shirked his Guard duty, and now has the gall to refer to himself as a “war president.”
Enough of that.
I agree that we, as progressives, need to stop swallowing Karl Rove’s stink bait about Vietnam and return the debate to the issues at hand:
Bush ignored warnings from the Clinton Administration, Richard Clarke, and his own PDB of August 6, 2001, about Osama bin Laden. The horror of 9/11 was a direct result of those failures!
(I don’t give a damn what he did with the bullhorn later--in fact, I have a suggestion about what he can do with that bullhorn NOW).He then promised to bring the culprits to justice. He invaded Afghanistan to smoke out bin Laden. As of today, bin Laden is STILL AT LARGE and the Taliban is reasserting itself in Afghanistan.
Having failed to catch the REAL criminal responsible for 9/11, he opted to create a phantom menace in the form of Saddam Hussein. He, and his PNAC ideologues had this in mind ever since his dubious coronation by Scalia.
Having already used the tragedy of 9/11 to curtail many of our fundamental civil liberties by shoving the PATRIOT Act through Congress, he now needed to emasculate Congress itself in order to carryout his Iraq agenda. This was finally accomplished when he got the Iraq War Resolution passed by a compliant and (in my opinion) gutless Senate on October 11, 2002.
This, as we all now know, required him to trot out the WMD rhetoric, concoct phony evidence, and LIE to the American people about Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. He then dispatched Powell to lie to the UN about the imminent threat posed by Iraq. HIS mission was accomplished! We are now engaged in a war of profit and revenge all in the name of Bush, oil, and Halliburton! Over 1,000 American military personnel have died to make he and his supporters sick dream a reality. Meanwhile, terrorist activity has INCREASED and hatred of the USA is at an all-time high!
While spending hundreds of billions of dollars on his crusade, Dubya simultaneously lowered taxes on the super-rich (his base). This has resulted in record decifits/debt and an ever-widening gap between rich and poor.
Bush has presided over the worst economy, in terms of job growth, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking employment in 1939. His record of a net-loss in job creation is the first since Hoover. Last year alone, the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 1.3 million (the majority of them children) and 1.4 million Americans lost their health coverage. This was the third straight increase in both categories. As of 2003, the Census Bureau reported that 35.8 million Americans lived below the poverty line and 45 million Americans lacked health insurance. Now there’s a record that doesn’t require any 30-year old documentation!
If these trends continue, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren (if the world lasts that long) will pay the tab for the party Bush&Co;. are throwing. Do we really want to give him four more years to run up bill?
Posted by cyclops on Sep 14, 2004 at 10:41 AM cyclops,
I am no Bush supporter, but should I call Michael Moore and tell him he has been plagiarized by some one named cyclops. I guess u saw 9/11.lol
Posted by the-antagonist on Sep 14, 2004 at 10:54 AM Yes, I have seen Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ (and I highly recommend it to those who haven’t), but I’ve also read everything I can find in the alternative media since this neocon dark age began in January of 2001. Who knows, maybe Mike was plagiarizing me. Either way, I’m proud if my litte diatribe can, in any way, be compared to Moore’s work.
Thanks!
Posted by cyclops on Sep 14, 2004 at 11:04 AM This election is about the direction that Bush is taking this country and all the false images that appear on the TV screen and all the distorted and distilled information reported through the media isn’t going to have that great deal of an effect upon people that want to believe that Bush is doing the right thing and that the fallen 1008 Americans, 20,300 Iraqi civilians, to say nothing of all the wounded on both sides is part of the price to be paid for the war on terrorism and keeping Americans safe!
Bush and Cheney are basically now saying that the war on terrorism can’t be won unless Kerry and Edwards are defeated too. They are as great a threat to America as Osama and al Qaeda, and if you listen to the current rhetoric they are our principal enemies. They have WMD’s and will and have used them against their own people look at their records!
I would unashamedly repeat that this president has been more harmful to the future of this democracy than any single individual in our 228 year history. That this president is all his critics purport him to be but because he has a link to “God” according to Pat Robertson and others all else is forgiven and ignored and in the final analysis all else is irrelevant.
We can believe in false prophets and follow them off the cliff into the abyss as the polling data is suggesting…
The world, according to polling outside of the horse race here suggests that America has never been so low in esteem and Bush the most distrusted leader is decades. That alone you would think would stimulate voters to question things but no, blind nationalistic pride takes over and our country - right or wrong mentality prevails, and Bush is the engineer of that train of thinking.
When the 1000 Americans killed was reached that didn’t change anything except in the homes of those families that lost a loved one.
The big question now is, will Kerry start talking and quit being Mr. nice guy because it isn’t working. If the Republican convention proved anything is that mean and negative works and nice and civil doesn’t.
The debates, the debates...I can’t stress it enough are going to be crucial for Kerry to succeed. He has to take off the gloves and hit hard on the economy, the war and our lowered stature in the world!
9/11 was a solemn day but it shouldn’t be a day in which we retreat into the belief in fiction and
continue in the belief that we must kill more people and sacrifice our integrity and sense of justice for campaign slogans and false prophets!
Bruce A Morgan
Posted by Bruce A. Morgan on Sep 14, 2004 at 11:35 AM Shawn: RIGHT ON, enough of this bullshit. I venture to guess that most people on these boards would’ve found a way out of Vietnam one way or another. Besides, there’s far more stupidity to vote this fucking asshole out of office on than something that happened almost 40 years ago.
That said…
Grace: Grow up. You sound like Bill Maher repeatedly beating a dead horse over the supposedly infamous 7-minute thing. I hate Dubya and his handlers, but this is a dumb point to get all hung up on.
What exactly was he (or any President) supposed to do? Not only was he in a room full of children, but there were CAMERAS present, too. You don’t want to act alarmed or panicked, because THAT’S the message you send to the country. Hard to blame him for acting in a calm, measured manner while the military/intel agencies spun into action.
Besides, there’s plenty more important stuff that he needs to answer for!
Posted by g-love on Sep 14, 2004 at 12:14 PM How come the documentation that Moore has in Fahrenheit 9-11, which shows a blacked out name,which is supposedly the name of someone who became the financial wizard for the Saudi’s has not been more publicly explored. Looks like this guy might qualify to collect Gary Trudeaus 10 K $s. Gord Poole
Posted by Gord Poole on Sep 14, 2004 at 1:58 PM Gord,
The man you are referring to is James R. Bath. He helped broker various deals between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. You should check out Craig Unger’s ‘House of Bush, House of Saud.’ Much of the material in Moore’s film was derived from Unger’s research into these matters. For an interesting article about Bath himself and the redacted Tx National Guard suspension doc, see Salon’s article ‘Mystery Man’ at: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/27/james_bath/
Posted by cyclops on Sep 14, 2004 at 2:30 PM Great story!! Thank you
It’s so refreshing to read something that’s not slanted toward Dubya. In looking at the responses, I see it has annoyed more than a few of his fans-- tough luck, people. You reap what you sow.
;)
Posted by Farquharson on Sep 14, 2004 at 8:29 PM Truth wrote:
....whining and suck it up for the next 4 years, because Kerry’s swift boat is sinking fast!!!Kerry’s swift boat is sinking? This is how dubya handles a campaign--to attack a man with LIES from a bunch of asshole crybaby vets who can’t stand to see a decorated man run against their boy?
All of this swift boat stuff has been discredited, YET, Bush won’t answer for his going AWOL.So the real picture here is credibility. Bush lying about his service record just proves how much of a liar he is now, especially when his administration has lied about saying they were positive they would find nuclear weapons, not to mention the WOMD.
Dick Cheney:
“We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (He later said he meant “nuclear weapons programs.") [Source: Boston Globe.]But when pressed on it by Tim Russert in the September 2003 MTP interview, he admitted:
“Yeah, I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show ‘weapons capability.’ We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon
uh, yeah. Send some of your relatives to fight in Iraq.
Bush Claimed Tax Cuts Would Not Bring Deficits
CBO Reported $4 Trillion Lower Surplus In Just One Year, Bush Tax Cut was Single Largest Reason. A January 2002 CBO report found that the ten-year surplus had shrunk by $4 trillion, from $5.6 trillion estimated in 2001 to $1.6 trillion. CBO concluded that the Bush tax cut was the single largest reason for the deterioration of the surplus.Bush said Social Security Trust Fund would remain in a lockbox
For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the Trust Fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it.” In March 2001 he said, “Another priority is retirement systems of Americans. And so the budget I set up says that payroll taxes are only going to be spent on one thing, and that’s Social Security.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Bush uses “all the Social Security surpluses ... to fund the government for the next two years, and to spend well over $100 billion of Social Security funds in each of the following three years.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/5/02]
A House Budget Committee Democratic staff analysis of the Bush budget proposal found that over the next ten years $1.6 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund is spent on other government operations. CBO found that without assuming any new spending — such as homeland security and prescription drug coverage for Medicare — the Social Security Trust Fund would be raided every year through FY 2009.Bush promised to make higher education more accessible by helping students with high costs.
The Bush administration proposed a plan to help ease the $100 billion federal budget shortfall by tapping $1.3 billion from a federal student loan program. OMB Director Mitch Daniels and GOP budget negotiators proposed preventing college students and graduates from consolidating their education loans at federally subsidized, fixed interest rates. The GOP plan would allow the consolidated loans to be offered only at variable rates, making the loans less appealing. [New York Times, 4/28/02]As part of the bipartisan education reform, Bush promised to spend more money on education.
This bipartisan law is based on the principle that, with adequate resources, real reform is possible. But rather than building on this progress, the President’s budget cuts initiatives in The No Child Left Behind Act by a net total of $90 million.” [House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democratic staff, The Bush Budget: Shortchanging School Reform, 2/12/02]
Bush Education Budget Provided Smallest Funding Increase In Seven Years. President Bush proposed a 2.8 percent increase, roughly $1.4 billion, in education funding, the smallest increase in seven years. [House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democratic staff, The Bush Budget: Shortchanging School Reform, 2/12/02]What is a broken promise? Read my lips, it’s a lie.
Posted by Neil on Sep 15, 2004 at 8:23 AM Calm down Neil. It’s only politics!!! Now, when GW wins in Novemeber, I don’t want you having a coronary!!! There will always be Hillary in ‘08!!
Posted by Truth on Sep 15, 2004 at 10:15 AM Actually, Bush benefits from this tit for tat argument about his military service because it keeps the campaigns’ focus on Bushes wars. If the spotlight of the campaign were on any of his other Presidential initiatives people couldn’t help but see what a complete and total failure his Administration has been. In fact, people would wake up to the fact that this nut is a fraud and the people behind him executed a coup d’etat.
Posted by theloneous on Sep 15, 2004 at 3:04 PM Authenticity backed on Bush documents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/09/ibm-executive-typewriters.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bus sh_documents/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/213416/348
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/205917/730
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100010
http://www.fair.org/views.htmlWho really cares that Bush avoided Viet Nam. Many did. What bothers me is that Mr. Bush disobeyed a direct order without consequences, and that he and his handlers have covered up and lied about his service, or lack there of, for thirty years.
Posted by DanInAlabama on Sep 15, 2004 at 4:20 PM The only thing the corporate-controlled media is hungry to grasp is scandal, against Kerry.Bush was AWOL for weeks from his cushy air-guard job,while Kerry was wounded in Vietnam(and he has the shrapnel to prove it). A classic “no-brainer” From my perspective, there’s no disputing who the hero is, and who, for being born a southern blue-blood with powerful connections, thinks they deserve another four years.Give it up FOX news,
your Australian leader Rupert Murdoch needs to go back to the land down under,and take your journalist flunkies Hannity and “O’Really” with him.
Posted by Greg on Sep 15, 2004 at 9:01 PM Regarding the stories surrounding President Bush and his missing year of Guard duty, there is another angle that needs to be investigated.
I too served in the military in 1971-72 with the Army. My last
assignment was at Ft. Bragg, NC with the 82nd Airborne.
At that time, Bragg was one of the bases that Vietnam vets returned to, spending about 30 days and filling out paperwork so they could muster out and go home.Trouble was, more than a few of the returning ‘Nam vets had picked up a nasty heroin habit in SE Asia and brought the habit back stateside. At Bragg, the law of supply and demand kicked in and soon, heroin was readily available at Ft. Bragg and the surrounding area.
The Pentagon brass realized it had a serious problem on its hands; namely, discharging heroin addicted soldiers back into civilian life.
So, to help combat this plague, in 1972, they instituted random, urinalysis drug testing for ALL personnel.If a common grunt could be pulled in for a drug screen, wouldn’t a jet pilot be required to submit urine for drug testing?
By our Warrior King’s own admission, in his younger days he used and abused alcohol and allegedly, marijuana and cocaine.
Perhaps that is why Bush failed to show up for his last year and missed his flight physical. His handlers knew it would be easier to obfuscate the records for an AWOL soldier rather than try to explain why his urine showed illegal drug use.
Greg Bacon
Posted by Greg Bacon on Sep 16, 2004 at 1:55 AM I see and hear more reporting about the nonsense regarding Bush and his NTL Gaurd service than the debacle and tragedy of more lives lost in Iraq.
There is more time spent on the quality of the documents that CBS presented than the lapse of the assault weapons ban.
The media can’t seem to report in coherent sentences what this administration is actually doing on any number of vital fronts that should be of concern to the voting public but they wil report that Kerry as yet to make his case for change and fault him for the success of the Bush campaign to frame the debate. What is he supposed to do, do the media’s job for them too.
Anyone paying any attention at all can see the that the emperor has no clothes but the media seems to have no vision and can’t report the obvious.
The only criticisms levied at this administration are in some of the OPED’s, but are people reading
or getting all their opinions from Fox’s Hannity whom would liken “liberalism” to dispotism and terrrorism and old reliable Rush Limbaugh that always says the right thing; and do people have the sort of mentality to actually believe al this nonesense? Evidence suggets that people do! Newsweeks recent polling still suggests that 41 % of people are still in the belief that Saddam was in part responsible for 9/11! That is Amazing!
The media better get onto doing what they’re expected to do investigative reporting. No wonder the regular neworks are losing viewers to cable, they can’t be differenciated from one another and basically are not what they used to be.
The debates are fast approaching, and it will perhaps be the the ony time this president may have to answer hardball questions in front of a large audiance.
Among the many, many more importent questions, he will probably be asked about his NTL Gaurd service…
Also,it would seem the Valorie Plame question has evaporated along with all the other undrhanded doing of this administration.
Posted by Bruce A. Morgan on Sep 16, 2004 at 8:38 AM people have to remember bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He can’t never loose or admit that he is wrong. Why doesn’t somebody investigate his drug use and dui records, he was a booze hound till he was 39. I am sure the bush people have rounded up all his party friends to make sure they don’t talk to the news.
How’s that for american values.
Posted by brian van pelt on Sep 16, 2004 at 9:50 AM Brian Van Pelt: “He can’t never loose or admit that he is wrong.”
----------
You can’t never use good grammar.
Posted by York on Sep 16, 2004 at 10:50 AM “people have to remember bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth”
----------
People have to remember that the Bush family was NOT rich when George W. was born.
People have to remember that when windbag Anne Richards used that “silver foot in his mouth” line on George H. W. Bush, he WON the election against Dukakis, AND his son, George W., kicked her out of her Governor’s seat by beating her in the next election for Texas Governor.
People have to remember that there is nothing contemptible about being wealthy.
People have to remember that John Kerry grew up in a well-to-do family.
People have to remember that John Kerry earned his fortune the old-fashioned way: He married into it - TWICE!
Posted by York on Sep 16, 2004 at 10:59 AM Brian Van Pelt: “Why doesn’t somebody investigate his drug use and dui records.”
----------
Hey genius, where did you get the fundamentally absurd idea that the liberal media, the Gore camp of four years ago, and the Kerry camp of today, have all NOT gone over George Bush’s past with a fine-toothed comb, over and over and over? Have you considered the possibility that there is nothing there?
Posted by York on Sep 16, 2004 at 11:08 AM Folks, I hate to break the news, but we’re screwed this November REGARDLESS of who gets in office. Dubya’s stupidity - and the cunning, evil imperialism of his handlers - has been well-documented for anyone who really wishes to find it. The fact of the matter is that most Americans are too stupid/lazy to bother with such trifling issues as who they’ll turn the keys to the kingdom over to for the next four years.
But Kerry? How is it the news media’s fault that this moron has yet to offer any kind of substantive plan on how he would do things differently? I was no big fan of the Iraq debacle, but I also don’t buy Kerry’s vague nonsense about building “international consensus” and gaining support.
Gaining support from who? France? The vapid, useless tool that is the UN?
Kerry’s voting record is abysmal, his economic “ideas” are as horrid as Dubya’s… it’s a sad, sad day for America (and the world) when these two ass-clowns are the best we can serve up to lead the greatest economic/military power the world has ever seen.
Posted by g-love on Sep 16, 2004 at 2:10 PM you keep believing nothing is there, bury your head in the sand.
Posted by brian vanpelt on Sep 16, 2004 at 2:29 PM 1 billion a week is spent on iraq, 1009 dead gi’s,over 7000 wounded in a year and a half. Bush does’nt know how long we will be in iraq. He
estimates at least another 3 years. how long will the american people put up with this?
Posted by v.p. on Sep 16, 2004 at 4:04 PM I don’t really care if Bush served or not but I would suggest if it were you or I missing for a period taht we wee supposed to be on duty, we would have been in big trouble unless we too had important fathers to step in and smooth things out, have records lost or whatever it took to make their son look like he did his duty.
The Bush team of deceptive and underhanded practices has attempted to torpedo the CBS report not on what it implies or in fact reveals but on whether they are authentic or not. Of course they can’t account for Bush’s whereabouts during this period, falsified documents or not…
And why claim the documents are false and jump through hoops to suggest that they are; why not bring in some real live person or persons that were there and say that George was indeed there ..they can’t do that because nobody remembers him...why because he wasn’t there!
Scott McClellan claims it’s just an effort of Kerry and his campaign to tear down the commander in chief...DUH, there are far more important issues to point out this president’s failings than what happen 30 years ago!
The guard service is only relevant now because Bush has lied about it and all the information by all these other people, some who are Bush family friends are portrayed as the usual collection of liars and are politically motivated to discredit the president.
The Kerry service was fair game and they could say whatever they wanted, then it stands to reason that Bush’s presence in the same period would get some attention by the ever diligent press that is intent on wasting so much time in reporting what we really don’t give a hoot about right now.
Hey, I would suggest that Bush, if he were a honest guy could have said Yea, I got special treatment because of the influence of my daddy and he could get away with it, but he chose to not tell the truth and brought this nonsense on himself…
I went to Vietnam and returned. I was not privileged to be able to enter the Ntl Guard or get a deferment nor did I take off to Canada. I wouldn’t resent Bush getting out of going to Vietnam except for the fact that he was for that war and someone else may have gone in his place and maybe died serving the country while he was avoiding even the minimum of service.
Do I think it will make any difference to the those undecided?...I doubt it.
I’m not voting against Bush’s because of his lack of military service anymore than I’m voting for Kerry because of his distinction in his.
Bush didn’t mind the sacrifice of 57 thousand of our troops in Vietnam and he certainly isn’t disturbed by the mere 1000+ and the 20 thousand plus Iraqis…
________________________________________________________________
Posted by Bruce A. Morgan on Sep 16, 2004 at 6:26 PM Brian wrote: “hey my grammer is as good as bush. I could be president.”
----------
No it’s not (nor is your spelling). And, no you couldn’t.
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 10:08 AM I hope most of the people that visit this website and make these very “intellectual” comments regarding the war in Iraq and Bush’s service are voting for Nader. He is the only anti-war candidate out there. Do you think that Kerry will do anything different? Other than fight a more compassionate war? Freaking hypocrates!!!
Oh yeah, Neil, you never responded back to me. Are you still seething???
Posted by Truth on Sep 17, 2004 at 10:09 AM Brian wrote: “you keep believing nothing is there, bury your head in the sand.”
----------
So prove it hotshot. Make your case. (NOTE: No Dan Rather-authorized documents will be accepted.)
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 10:11 AM I keep wondering, if it has been proven that George Bush was a slacker over 30 years ago, why did some liberal maggot need to forge a document “proving” that which has already been so thoroughly established? Isn’t the whole forgery mess a clear indication that in the absence of REAL evidence, you losers had to make something up?
And by the way, have I mentioned lately that Pruneface and Prettyboy are going to have the asses handed to them come November? And what a joy it will be to finally be done with these idiots, and especially to be rid of that horrid bitch Theresa “Shove It” Heinz Kerry.
I relish liberal anguish.
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 10:22 AM Some more examples of liberals maggots in action:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040917-010155-8041r.htm
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liplan163973154sep16,0,5286651.s story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines
http://johnnbrown.blogspot.com/2004/09/911-memorial-vandalized.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat483.html
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/000869.html
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 10:56 AM read kitty kelly’s book. It took her 4 years of research, she has wittness, and documentation, but I know how the right hates the facts.
Posted by v.p. on Sep 17, 2004 at 11:23 AM I would rather have a first lady that says shove it, than a vice pres. that when backed into a corner says fuck you.
Posted by v.p. on Sep 17, 2004 at 11:27 AM York:
You’re priceless! The case has already been MADE. Now your only recourse is to quibble with the evidence provided...as if those 4 documents were the only thing proving Bush failed to adequately perform his duties in Texas Air National Guard. That he got in the Guard (and stayed out of Vietnam) as a result of Bush family string-pulling doesn’t even matter. The fact IS, he couldn’t even be bothered to show up and do his duty state side, but then, as NOW, he was all for the war...just as long as someone else does the fighting!
By the way, while you’re demanding proof, how about those oh-so-honest Swift Boat Vets for Bush? That’s right, I forgot…you’ll just take their word for it. Never mind that “their word” today directly contradicts “their word” previously regarding Kerry’s service. Kerry only has the eyewitness testimony of his crewmates and his official Navy record to vouch for his valor in combat.
Meanwhile, our illustrious Chickenhawk-N-Chief has a record of...? Oh, yeah, his steadfast stewardship has resulted in the worst national security disaster in our history, record deficits, record job-loss, 1,000 combat deaths in a unjust war of choice, 4 straight years of increased poverty and decreased health care coverage, and the worst international reputation our great nation has ever known...now that’s leadership!
But where’s OSAMA BIN LADEN? How many caves in the Tora Bora region are equipped with dialysis machines? Are the terrorists gone now? Did our idiotic foray into Iraq scare them all away? Do the Saudi royals still hang out and smoke cohiba cigars at the White House like they did 2 days after 15 of their countrymen destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon? Has rewarding our enemies and alienating our allies really made us SAFER? Was that a nuclear WMD test in North Korea the other day? I guess that isn’t a threat because they don’t have as much OIL as Iraq.
As far as your snide little grammar lessons go, why don’t you “shove it!” By the way, I think you meant to say, “going to have THEIR asses handed to them...” Unless, of course, you were conceding the election and assuming that Bush and Cheney (THE ASSES) would be turned over to the NEW (and legally elected) administration for prosecution. A few of the more serious charges could include:
1. Treason
(revealing active intelligence assets--namely Plame and Khan).
2. War Crimes
(interrogation procedures [aka torture] at Abu Graib and Git-mo)
3. Malfeasance
(election tampering [Florida voter roll purge], covering-up for Enron, no-bid contracts to Halliburton)The list could go on and on, but, quite frankly, I feel it is a waste of time to try and educate an idiot like you…
Posted by cyclops on Sep 17, 2004 at 12:10 PM Well, the dialogue seems to have digressed to name calling. Bushites enjoy calling “liberals” names and expose their own evolutionary level..."maggots" indeed. Come on people, either address the issues in a civil manner or quit taking up the space.
Nader, regardless of his intellectual acumen and all the good that he has done couldn’t be elected to anything but could possibly be appointed to some position in a Kerry administration.
Posted by Bruce A Morgan on Sep 17, 2004 at 12:17 PM Bruce,
Sorry if you feel I had a part in lowering the level of the discourse, but I do feel I was addressing “the issues” in a civil manner.
As to how civil I was in addressing York, well that’s a different kettle of fish. I guess I have difficulty countenancing such caustic lunacy without comment.
Posted by cyclops on Sep 17, 2004 at 12:30 PM Excuse me hotshot, but Kerry has already been made to concede that his “Christmas in Cambodia” fantasy, which was supposedly “seared, seared” into his memory, was a lie.
He has also conceded that his first purple heart might have been unintentionally self-inflicted.
He still has not answered for his post-Vietnam treason, and now retribution has arrived.
Kerry is going to lose, which makes me laugh.
As for Bush, the fact remains that you guys couldn’t make a case, so you fabricated evidence. You’ve done yourselves proud.
As for your inability to distinguish between poor grammar and an obvious typo, well, you ARE a liberal, so nothing surprises me.
Have a happy November, loser.
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 12:34 PM I think i once heard GWB missed jury duty, surely that disqualifies him (only the children of the rich get away with that, and Kerry surely does not fall into *that* category). And that he is a fag. And that he is, gasp, a democrat. If you don’t believe me, just ask Dan - he can produce the documentation (note to self, buy an old Underwood tonight at flea market).
Posted by bobby on Sep 17, 2004 at 1:35 PM Retribution, thy name is York!
While there is still some debate about the timeline in regards to the Cambodian incident, Kerry has not conceded the point. Nor has he conceded that his first purple heart might have been awarded for a self-inflicted wound.
I guess in your warped world view Kerry’s testimony about the atrocities he witnessed in Vietnam is tantamount to treason, but Bush LYING to start a war is hunky dory.
Perhaps you need to wean yourself away from the Fox News Channel. Their “some people say” and second and third-hand sourcing is not, in fact, FACT. It is, at best, a series of agenda-laden quips (or as they are known in the biz “talking points"). Real journalism is a bit more involved and, at least, attempts a modicum of objectivity.If Kerry does lose, I hope you are still laughing when your child dies in Iraq, when you lose your job, when your health insurance becomes cost prohibitive...in short, when Bush’s four years of shit hits the proverbial fan. One thing, though, don’t expect YOUR hero Georgie to be around to help you out. He has a habit of disappearing when the going gets tough!
And, finally, I think it might be reasonable to deduce that typing the seemingly unintentional double negative “can’t never” instead of “can never” or “can’t” might be a typo and not a grammatical error. Of course you neocons are always RIGHT because “you can never lose or admit your wrong.” Would that it were really that simple.
By the way, don’t count your Florida chickens until your election fraud schemes are hatched. I think I’ll just wait and see who’s laughing in November…
Posted by cyclops on Sep 17, 2004 at 1:47 PM Cyclops:
I wasn’t addressing your reaction and suggesting that you were contributing to the lowering yourself to the standards of those that choose to belittle and berate others with language that doesn’t contribute to the discourse but only begins to reduce it to a shouting match.
I have written a number of times already and have made spelling and grammatical errors through the haste of typing; so, as far as those criticisms go, why resort to the personal attacks and avoid the thrust of one’s argument.
We’re supposed to be discussing the relevancy of the commander in chief’s handling of things and not attacking each others vocabularies or grammar.
I believe the president can mangle the language as well as anybody and frequently does in front of the entire world.
Your reactions are understandable.
All the best…
Posted by Bruce A Morgan on Sep 17, 2004 at 2:21 PM Cyclops wrote: “I guess in your warped world view Kerry’s testimony about the atrocities he witnessed in Vietnam is tantamount to treason.”
----------
Cyclops, you are one dumb liberal cocksucker. John Kerry clearly gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese in the form of propaganda- propaganda WHICH THEY USED. He LIED about American soldiers. He said things, for his own greedy political purposes, that POW’s would not say even under torture. Have you no clue at all how absolutely reprehensible this behavior is. The Swift Vets are correcting the record, and Kerry, and YOU, whine about it. Well, fuck you and your demon-infested heart. Kerry is losing because among many reasons, he is an opportunist and a liar.
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 3:46 PM Bruce, don’t pretend for minute that you or any other liberal can take the high ground. For years, FOR YEARS, I tried to play it nice with liberals and all that I ever got back in return was being called a racist, homophobe, Nazi, et cetera and so forth. Liberals have it in their heads that anyone who has the temerity to simply DISAGREE with them on any given issue, is somehow a malformed entity and MUST be called a name. Liberals are the ones that lowered the level of discourse, so fuck anyone that wants to whine about it now. I’m done playing it nice.
Look at these examples of tolerant liberals playing nice:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040917-010155-8041r.htm
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liplan1 163973154sep16,0,5286651.story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines<
http://johnnbrown.blogspot.com/2004/09/911-memorial-van ndalized.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat483.html
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/000869.html
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 3:59 PM One more liberal attempt at mythmaking falling apart at the seams...and I laugh.
From the Powerline.com blog:
One omission from the news coverage of the CBS scandal has been the reticence of Gen. Staudt, who, unlike the memos’ purported author, Jerry Killian, is alive and well. General Staudt has now given an interview to ABC News, which apparently will air tonight. Here are the General’s comments as reported by ABC today:
“He didn’t use political influence to get into the Air National Guard. I don’t know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn’t talk to any of them.”
“He was highly qualified. He passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given.”
“No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard. It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody.”
“He was a well-educated, bright-eyed young man, just the kind of guy we were looking for. He presented himself well. I’d say he was in the upper 10 percent or 5 percent or whatever we ever talked to about going to pilot training. We were pretty particular because when he came back [from training], we had to fly with him.” [Ed.: That’s a heck of a good point, if you think about it.]
Staudt retired from the Guard in March of that year and said he was never contacted about Bush’s performance.
“There was no contact between me and George Bush … he certainly never asked for help,” Staudt said. “He didn’t need any help as far as I knew.”
He added that after retiring he was not involved in Air National Guard affairs. “I didn’t check in with anybody — I had no reason to,” he said. “I was busy with my civilian endeavors, and they were busy with their military options. I had no reason to talk to them, and I didn’t.”
There you have it. If CBS had carried out a competent investigation into the documents’ authenticity, they would have contacted General Staudt to get his reaction to the statement about him in the August 1973 memo. Had they done so, they would have learned that he had retired well before that date, and would have had to take into account his denial of the allegation in the memo, and of the whole thrust of their report.
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 4:04 PM Mr. York:
I don’t pretend to take the high ground but if you chose to take the low ground that’s your business. I won’t call you any names as your are so prone to do.
Your opinions are nothing new and of course it’s easy to call people names in a forum such as this. My guess is that your probaby a coward and can only express your machismo by calling everyone names. I’m frankly not impressed.
I’m through reading this nonsense.
You deserve Bush.
Have a wonderful life…
Posted by BAM on Sep 17, 2004 at 4:57 PM BAM wrote: “I’m frankly not impressed.”
----------
I frankly wasn’t trying to impress you. Who are you, that I should I care?
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 5:01 PM BAM writes:
“I won’t call you any names”and in the same post he writes:
“My guess is that your probaby a coward”----------
So, I leave you with a syllogism:
1) All hypocrites are useless cocksuckers.
2) BAM is obviously a hypocrite.
3) Therefore, BAM is a useless cocksucker.
Posted by York on Sep 17, 2004 at 5:08 PM Your loathing and presumed keen insight into the character of others is probably reflective of you your own distorted and faulty personality.
I’m removing myself from this list...you’re probably a very lonely and bitter young man because I can’t imagine you getting along in normal society with adults of any political persuasion..
I would suggest to you that many of my friends are proud “ditto-heads” and we get along fine. And when we disagree I don’t recall many expletives or belittling names being shouted out.
I doubt calling you a coward is indicative of being hypocritical because rather than call you this or that I was assessing your character by the manner in which you aggressively assault others and you sound like a coward.
As I said: it’s easy in this forum to express yourself like you really are and speak like you think.
You perhaps need some therapy, anger management and possibly restraints.
Do they allow people in prison on the Internet?
I’m out of this forum…
“Learn to look with an equal eye upon all beings, seeing
the one Self in all.”
Srimad Bhagavatam
Posted by BAM on Sep 17, 2004 at 5:37 PM York,
Very interesting. ABC gets ONE person who would have been a postion to help Bush get into the guard, and he contradicts Barnes, the only other person who would have been a position to help Bush, and you declare victory. Wouldn’t that be a tie. One says one thing and another person of equal weight says another?
But then, what about Strong, Knox, and Carr. All three were in a position to know Bush’s NG career and they all contradict your guy. They all say Bush got very special treatment. HMMM… now it looks like 4 to 1 and you are losing.
WOOOPS, I forgot about the records that Bush released (not the Dan Rather stuff). They show that Bush was missing for 6 months, they show he didn’t take the physical. The official (Bush provided documents as examined by the Boston Globe) show that Bush has a lot of explaining to do.
But no wait. You have ONE witness who says ignore all the rest of this. I guess everyone else is lieing, since you have that ONE person. This makes life, and politics so easy.
Thank you York.
Posted by Charlie Horse on Sep 17, 2004 at 6:06 PM York,
Staudt was never mentioned in the “Dan Rather Memos?” Those memos were about Bush’s performance, not about getting into the guard. So Staudt would have no direct knowledge about anything in the memos right? (but of course Carr, Knox and Strong would have direct knowledge, and CBS did check with them and they all say the allegations (maybe not the forms) are all true.)
Why would CBS have to check a performance evaluation with someone who was retired and not Bush supervisor?
Oh, I forgot, this someone, Staudt, supports Bush’s version of the events. So to be “fair and balanced” we would always need to find someone to support Bush even if that person was out of the loop and would have no personal knowledge of the facts.
This politics stuff is a snap. Ignore 90% of the evidence, find someone who agrees with Bush, and report that case is closed, ooohhhh I love it.
Posted by Charlie Horse on Sep 17, 2004 at 6:19 PM I did error in the above post. Staudt is mentioned in the 4th document as the one who was “surgar coating” Bush’s record. This action by Staudt would be improper and embarassing to both Staudt and Bush. I guess it should come as no surprise that Staudt denies it ever happened.
So I should change the above post to “someone with a little personal knowledge and a lot of personal stake in the game” supports Bush’s version of the events.
Posted by Charlie Horse on Sep 17, 2004 at 9:18 PM As far as Turnipseed not remembering Bush goes:
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003264.html
Bush was nothing then, why should he have remembered him?
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 19, 2004 at 7:37 PM Oh, for chrissakes!!! This is almost as bad as watching the so-called “liberal press” which has spent almost as much time carrying on about non-issues as some have on these boards.
WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT VIETNAM??
Drop it already, let it lie. How about looking at the ISSUES, such as the very real fact that neither one of these fools has any solid, substantive plan to deal with the deficit, health care, education and, of course, Iraq.
You know, the IMPORTANT shit....
Posted by g-love on Sep 20, 2004 at 12:46 PM NM_native
Bush was not “nothing then” he was the son of a congressman. He is really nothing now, except the supreme court decided to give him a title.
Also it is not just Turnipseed. NO ONE remembers him.
Posted by Charlie Horse on Sep 20, 2004 at 3:13 PM The Billhobbs link above… whoa… what a great place to get the news. Well it is a great place to get half the news, from the half-assed mind of Hobbs.
Bush still hasn’t explained his missing months, he was required to drills every month, officers did give some slack. But Bush had 9 consecutive months with no drills. He skipped his physical, and still has no satisfactory explanation. Real pilots would never skip a physical.
Hobbs says he has proven the left is lieing. All he has proven is that Turnipseed, who was a minor part of the strory, won’t take any side in the issue.
Color me scared of Hobbs, with damning proof like that.
Posted by Charlie Horse on Sep 20, 2004 at 3:30 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Christopher Hayes
- The New Road to Serfdom
Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy" - Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy - What We Learn When We Learn Economics
Is a little economics a dangerous thing? - The Abramoff Babies
Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms. - The Good War on Terror
How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad - Economic Populism Proves Popular
To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
