You forgot Windsurfing Wafflers
Posted by tatianna on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:42 PM
Joanne,
Thanks for your posts as well. I have been aware of the PNAC agenda for some time. I am a voracious reader of indy news sources for many years, long before the tradgedy of 9/11. Because of that, it is horrifically evident to me that the issues, agendas and questions examined by the few, rare, investigative journalists who have been labeled everything from wackos to “terrist”, have gradually, despite every effort of this administration, begun to emerge as relevant dialogue in our national discourse. It has been amazing to me how effective this administration has been in positioning the process of even asking questions as un-American, and how pliable the minds of the masses have been in accepting that ironically UN-AMERICAN propaganda. It is totally American to ask questions and to require answers and accountability from our elected officials. But unbelievably, that concept has been easily erased from the minds of the bleating masses. And unfortunately, I don’t think that many people even know what questions they’d ask, if they ever decided to ask any.
I’m still waiting for a single Bush supporter to explain to me how/why those in charge of our country should not be held accountable to at least answer questions (under oath) about the glaring inconsistencies and anomolies that ALLOWED the tragedy of 9/11. This, and the agenda of PNAC, which Scott would have me believe is just any ole think-tank, IMO, should be among the main talking points of every discussion about who we will elect to determine the direction of our nation in November.
I’m not at all encouraged by what has been offered up as an alternative to “Business of Politricks as Usual” by Kerry/Edwards. I am, as I’ve said, gravely concerned not only with the direction of our country, but with the massive ignorance and apathy of “We the People”. I believe that you are among the few who are doing your best to be informed, and actively involved in supporting what you believe to be the best option. Please don’t take my comments personally, even tho I don’t share your enthusiasm or optimism about JK’s agenda for affecting change in the areas I believe are in dire need of change. One of those areas, IMO is our entire electoral process in which we have 2 candidates, economically beholden to the same bosses. I believe we should ask those very uncomfortable, and potentially embarrassing questions about the “strings” attached to major business/industry contributions to our leaders. Let’s get it out there on the table, at the Presidential debates, and talk about it candidly BEFORE the elections! That’s another debate I won’t go into now, but one that ultimately must become a priority for “We the People”. As I said in my original post on this board, its very frightening that a nation of people, the majority of whom have never left the country (or maybe even their own state), who consider themselves “informed” if they watch the corporate news or read the local paper, who are products of an anemic education system that is more and more a model of indoctrination and recitation than critical thinking, who haven’t read anything more in-depth than the National Enquirer or watched anything more stimulating than the reality show of the day, who consume and create waste on a collosally disproportionate level on the planet, and who can’t even find the next country we’ll pre-emptively attack on a map, are “electing” leaders who are making decisions that not only affect them and their families in ways that they scarcely understand, but on people all around the world. I’m sure at this point some Rhodes Scholar will suggest that if I don’t like it, that I just leave, or that I must be a “whining” liberal, et al. But folks, I’m talking about US, MY people, Myself- before I began waking up, smelling the coffee, asking the un-comfortable, and more importantly asking what I could do to make a difference. I respect anyone who offers an opinion that they hold based in responsible research and a point of view that is beyond a propaganda-based-bias- AND takes committed action on their convictions. Unless I’ve missed the Memo that the current administration has succeeded in re-defining that, I believe that’s what it means, fundamentally, to be an American.
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:47 PM
6Gun:
“It’s a documented fact that Bill Clinton mentioned Christ MORE often than the hated fundamentalist from Texas.”
Michael:
“Just shows that the Constitution works the way it is supposed to. Nothing there to prevent the President from personal religious expression. Now show me some examples of how Liberal Bill and the Wings prevented you from your own personal religious expression.”
You again take me out of context, Mike, and doing so, take the point of the argument from the personal to the legal. Not appropriate.
My point is that private, non-governmental leftists frequently lampoon Bush for his sordid Christian values and overrunning government with white-hooded male Baptist villianry. Check out nearly any of Phoebe’s many shrieking trainwrecks to see what I refer to.
There is no Constitutional issue in private free speech here, nor has The Adolescent President of ‘92-‘98 oppressed my expression of say, his decrepit character in any way. That’s not the point.
The point is personally accountable consistency, something the private Left, including our gracious host, regularly lacks.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:52 PM
Response to 6Gun”
I asked:
“For some people their choice is no religion. Are they therefore somehow less citizens than the Christian founders?
6Gun replied:
“Yes, they are less citizens, at least in my opinion.”
And there is the difference.
A wise person once told me, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. You’ll just waste your time and annoy the pig.” My apologies to the pig. Any furtherance of this discourse would be wasting our time and annoying each other.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:54 PM
I love Garrison but his take on reality is a little one sided. I wish I had his way with worda so I will just say when he disects the left side as honestly as the right I will regain a lot of respect for him. The evil of two lesser will be elected in November. Kerry or Bush ,in my opinion there will be no real differance in the long run.
Posted by Ric Joans on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:55 PM
“I’m still waiting for a single Bush supporter to explain to me how/why those in charge of our country should not be held accountable to at least answer questions (under oath) about the glaring inconsistencies and anomolies that ALLOWED the tragedy of 9/11.”
Untrue, Kim. You just don’t like the answers you got. You’ve had both practical and legal answers you haven’t bothered to try and refute.
Agenda?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:55 PM
Mike, in defense of your own mindset, do you deny me the right to my own?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:57 PM
<Kim, to answer your first question, if a charge of crime is levelled at the Bush Administration, they would be made to testify, provided that Executive priviledge and national security were not impaired.
Is that an acceptable answer?
6Gun-Again, I ask YOU, (this is so hilariously typical of my conversation with EVERY Bush supporter I’ve ever asked this question) Do YOU think our leaders should be required to answer any/all questions (under oath) regarding the fulfillment of the duties for which we have hired them to fulfill…in regards to the events of 9/11 (or any event which occurs on their watch, for that matter)? And if not, WHY NOT?
FYI, there are lawsuits in process, so “The Jury” so-to-speak, is still out.
Still, again I ask YOU, is it important for YOU that your leaders would answer those questions, and if not, WHY NOT?
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:58 PM
Well, I guess President Rove must be on this thread personally tonight. Because the last post attributed to me above (posted at 8:37 pm) was decidedly not written by me. (Sorry about the language in that post, Anna, but these momma’s boys were all weaned a bit early.) The one right above it (at 8:31 pm) was one that I actually wrote.
Jeez, we’re really entering the Twilight Zone on this thread now, folks. These right-wingers are getting scarier by the minute, but I can smell them beginning to melt from here. (Can’t tell yet if it’s the smell of napalm or crude oil.) My apologies also to the thread (on behalf of their parents and other kin) that they never learned how to behave in polite company.
Please be polite enough (whoever this creep is) not to use my name when you work out your own fantasies on this thread and/or man enough to say what you mean using your own name (or whatever nickname you want to hide behind this time).
Quite a world we live in these days, folks. For those moral Republicans and Independents on this thread, make your own judgement as to who you’d like to be hanging with for the next four years. I’m just glad there’s so many of us here working together to change things.
Send the perverts back to their prep schools—elect Kerry/Edwards.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:04 PM
Kim, three things: Paragraph breaks, less shouting, and pay attention. Remember, the Trvth isn’t nearly as obvious to me as it is to you (and Paula, was it?)
I’m not a Bush supporter, at least not in the sense I think you mean.
Government should be far more accountable than it usually is.
There’s no evidence the President committed any crimes re: 9/11.
Government has security concerns that override questionable demands of the Executive by tiny portions of the country.
Last time, okay?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:06 PM
Sure, Bernie. It was a Vast Conspiracy. You bet.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:08 PM
Actually, whoever is using my name (must be too ashamed to use his own) is a pretty fast poster. So the posts at 8:37, 8:56, 9:04 and any that appear (probably before and) after this one are from some seriously sad soul. I’ll check with inthesetimes.com tomorrow to see what might be done to screen out this new class of Bush-supporters that we’ve been free from until now. Good night and my prayers go out to some anonymous someone who is definitely powerless over something, to the extent that his life is really unmanageable. I hope he can find a Higher Power soon.
Get your own life, creep.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:12 PM
Alright, 6Gun, you have demonstrated uncanny ability to tap dance all around simply answering the question:
“Do YOU personally think that the Prez. and other leaders charged by the families should answer their questions, under oath”?
Its very simple. If your answer is “NO”, the follow up question is “Why NOT?”
6Gun, I’ve gotta tell ya, Man. This is one of the key issues that people have with those who support this administration and/or their re-election. You are making the point perfectly.
You jumped into the dialogue, as my questions were directed to [anyone] who supports this admin./its re-election.
Why won’t you just answer the question? Speak for yourself…I’m not asking you for expounding philosophy on the corruption of the gov’t or hypothetical legal ramifications/exceptions, blah, blah, blah.
The question is oh, so simple.
I believe its clear that I, and those families, and the oh very few others you seem to think have asked these questions are doing exactly as you suggest:
“Think like a detective, Kim. Or an attorney. Look for cause, effect, motive, evidence. Ask basic questions. Come to basic, rational conclusions. “
The problem, if you’ve managed to miss it altogether, is that the accused/the administration, has conveniently exempted itself from the entire accountability process.
This is the last I’ll write on this 6- I think I’ve made my point, and if you refuse to answer, you have, too.
Peas
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:38 PM
I really don’t know what else to say, Kim. You keep demanding answers that may serve your needs but have no legal bearing:
“Do YOU personally think that the Prez. and other leaders charged by the families should answer their questions, under oath?”
Charged? By what evidence and in which Court of Law?
No, of course I don’t, simply because the President needn’t answer for something he’s not been LEGALLY charged with, due to lack of evidence, any more than you or I.
Do you think Clinton should get on the stand of public opinion and defend himself against “charges” of rape? Even after he resumed private life when Executive priviledge expired and without national security concerns?
You tell me, Kim. Should a sitting President be expected to answer to any and all who would challenge his leadership?
Could that possibly be in the rules someplace?
Do I personally think he should undergo this inquisition? Absolutely not; by what right should I (or that group) expect that procedure and security be waived?
Clinton was impeached for breaking the law. There was evidence and due process was served. With a million fruitcakes touting conspiracy theories against Bush, how about we just wait for one of them to make some real evidence stick after which point we can likewise charge and impeach Bush?
It’s precisely this partisan hysteria that gives the Democrats (you are one, yes?) a black eye. This is no more a valid question than have you stopped kicking the dog.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:00 PM
Bernie - glad to have you back and I was going to alert you to the wierdness being perpetrated over your name. Knowing that you are a fine, well brought up, Southern gentleman, I knew that couldn’t possibly be you. I can’t imagine that inthesetimes doesn’t have a way to prevent duplication of user names, since they require an email address to post.
Now that Scott is off on a hot date and 6Pack is involved in a constitutional conundrum festival, with a little obfuscation on the side with Kim, I’m all kicked back just enjoying the show after a hard day holding the line.
Kim, like you I’ve been reading indy news for a long time. Unlike some of the posters with a particular agenda for which they seek only that which provides support (or an easy target for their pithy analysis), I’m a curious person. I like reading different points of view, which is not to say I don’t have one of my own. As even 6Pack has acknowledged, none of us are burdenless in that regard.
I’ve traveled to 47 of the lower 48 states, Hawaii, Canada, Mexico,and much of Europe. I’ve worked in Germany, lived in Chicago, LA, NYC, a tiny town in extreme northern Wisconsin, and now in a midsize town. I’ve earned my living as a waitress, clerical worker, seamstress, design professional, manufacturer (as an owner of a business), and an over the road truck driver (big semi, 3 week runs). I’ve learned three languages in addition to English, but am unforgivably rusty in all of them. I’m only telling you this so you’ll know that I haven’t led the insular life you remark upon.
Lately I’ve been out canvassing for the Kerry and Feingold campaigns. Take heart - I did. People are waking up from their long dreamy sleep. People are becoming galvanized. They are seeing that this administration is running the country into a deep ditch, and they’re getting damn angry about it. The angriest ones are the Republicans who voted for Bush. They feel betrayed for obvious reasons. And they are voting. We offer them absentee ballot request forms if they are already registered, but most turn them down. They want to go to the polls, they want to gather with others and bring their family members. These are not people who are readers of indy news, or much news of any kind. I’ve done my canvassing in modest neighborhoods where people take care of their homes and their kids, go to church on Sunday, and give generously to charity. Most of them are voting for Kerry.
I agree with much of what you’ve said about how compromised both candidates and parties are by their connections to corporations, and yes, it should be a topic of discussion during the campaign. But then I have to remember that perfection is often the enemy of good. Right now, IMHO, it is imperative to break the back of the PNAC’ers and throw them out the door along with their dreams of further military misadventures and global corporate pillage. It’s time to make peace with our allies, identify common threats, and work together to contain and eliminate them. And I am not speaking only of Islamic extremist terrorists. I refer as well to the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of all types, environmental degradation, the continuing cycle of famines and pestilence, the impending crises in fossil fuel and clean water supplies, and the increasing threats on the communicable disease front.
It’s popular to say that only America can lead on these issues, but I’m not convinced that’s true. I believe it is true that if America refuses to participate, much less lead, that the world will isolate us as best they can and hold us at bay by any means necessary.
So while some would like to argue about Secular Humanism or trade insults all day (though once in awhile I feel compelled to respond in a manner that will dispel the notion that liberals are wussy), I prefer to roll up my sleeves and get those voters to the polls to take the first step in putting things right. For me, there are only two choices on the ballot in a few short weeks. My choice is obvious, and I also know it is only one of many choices I will make over the coming months and years.
I hope you’ll find a way to work with voters in your neighborhood that will motivate them to get to the polls or obtain and absentee ballot - if you live where DRE’s are used. Don’t despair.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:04 PM
Kim, the problem with your argument is a fundamental flaw: “...the accused/the administration, has conveniently exempted itself from the entire accountability process.”
The Administration has no such accountability obligation unless and until (1) evidence of a crime is presented, (2) Executive priviledge is waived or expires, and (3) national security is not jeopardized. Probably there are many more conditions that go along with this; I’m no lawyer.
When you begin with the faulty presupposition that due to lack of evidence, a Presidential Administration (or private citizen) is subject to proving innocence, you’ll always end up in the quagmire you find yourself in, Kim.
Posted by 5Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:06 PM
Thanks Joanne. I’m having trouble getting to sleep tonight. Been to stressed lately I think. Keep up the good work. After today, I’m really starting to think we’re going to win this one.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:14 PM
<<Do I personally think he should undergo this inquisition? Absolutely not; by what right should I (or that group) expect that procedure and security be waived? >>
Well 6- Ya did it. Whew! I know it was tough. But thanks for being the ONLY person I’ve ever asked to OPENLY admit that it is not important to them that the individual and his staff who may have been responsible for gross negligence, at the very least, that allowed for the tragic event-which, unbelieveably, they are now using as the cornerstone of their agendas and entitlement to re-election, be required (forget simply cooperative and willing) to answer even the most obvious and relevant questions from the people they supposedly serve.
Furthermore, you so graciously went on to demonstrate, in textbook style I must say, what intelligent people love to loathe about the “Rabid Right”:
Whenever possible, and particularly when faced with a really obvious and uncomfortable question that there’s no way to side-step- “Mention CLINTON.”
This is really a stretch tho, 6…Should Clinton be required to answer the questions FOR Bush and the other leaders who (I mistakenly thought) were accountable to us for their actions. Or should Clinton just be required to answer questions about his actions on that day? I’m not sure I’m connecting the dots….
Sorry, not a “Clintonite” or a Democrat, which you also managed to parrot in perfect paradigm. Now I know that those would be the two best reasons why I, or any other American would think the responsibility of our leaders is relevant…
But, you’ll have to think of a better reason that you’d offer the families for why they do not deserve answers or accountability from our leaders.
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:27 PM
Kind of like spinning endless talk and massive distraction about the complications involved in making a decision to “Shoot-down”, rather than answering the direct, still never answered questions about why the hell NO ONE MOVED according to policy or procedure that tragic day, and not one person has been held publicly accountable for a single mistake!
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:56 PM
Brooks,
Good morning, If I may respond to the paragraph beginning….“So, notwithstanding the Judeo Christian roots of western civilization and
the legal expressions that grew from these roots into the formative
documents of colonial America and into our Constitution, morality is a
question for philosophy and it is not a directly controlling concept in the
First Amendment. Now if you want to talk about fairness, that’s a whole
other ballgame.”
According to historian Robert T. Handy,“No more than 10 percent—probably less—of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.” This would suggest to me that there is no Judeo Christian roots in our Constitution. This is further borne out by the letters of Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Paine who all stated their specific unbelief in Christianity. Adams in particular wrote,“The United Stated of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artiface, imposture, hypocrisy, aqnd superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curisity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of af Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reson and the senses.
“....Thirteen governments (of the original states) thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” Such wording is very clear in its attempt to completely cut the divine out out of the process.
One other quick note to go along with that is the reference to the laws of the land coming from this Judeo Christian beginning. The 7th Ammendment to the Constitution states, “In suits at common law…the right of the trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law.” Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his leter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the dat of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of teh common law…This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced until the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then was a space of two hundred years, during which the comman law was in existence, and Christianity, had no part of it.”
There being no proof in existence of common law ever being adopted to include Christianity and since it did not exist as a religion yt in England and because they were not yet Christians, Jefferson said “we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
6gun I have read your satements with much anticipation and am sorry to be so late tonight getting home. My days and nights oft times run together. I look forward to asking a few more questions of you regarding you post. Please bear with me for another day and thank you again for posting it. I thoughly enjoyed it.
Lyle
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:56 PM
You’re not in Lake Wobegon, nor are you living in reality apparently. What a hypocritical and delirious dissertation from member of a political party whos shining stars are nothing more than a pathetic patchwork of elitist tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, backpack toting, granola-eating, pot-smoking, Patchouli-wearing, Jetta-driving, rainbow flag-waving lunatic liberal Democrats.
A party who perpetually practices the spread of pessimism, dependency, and hopelessness at every turn. You should be so proud.
And the very same party that boasts an ever-increasing number of self-serving, hate-obsessed kooks who have hijacked the Democrat party in recent years; stellar statesmen like Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Richard Dreyfus, Al Franken, Janine Garafalo, and Whoopi Goldberg to name but a few. Even lower on the evolutionary ladder are the putrid duo of Paul Begala and James Carville.
I will never understand why rich, out of touch Hollywood liberals think anyone actually cares what they think. Reality is the last thing they are qualified to comment on.
Your inherent unwillingness to scrutinize your own pathetic political party indicates that you appear to be suffering from severe over-exposure to Democrat derision and suffering a significant bout of political imprudence. But don’t worry, it’s all too common this time of year. In fact, I understand that there was a massive outbreak of it in Boston just a few weeks ago. But a cure is at hand. A few weeks of intense cerebral therapy and we should have you back on your feet and thinking on your own again in no time.
I am voting for President George W. Bush because he, like the majority of Republicans and other adult free-thinking Americans, understands that you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift, you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot help small men by tearing down big men, you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, you cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer, you cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred, you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence, and most important, he understands that you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
You and your insipid ilk clearly do not understand these concepts, and that is precisely why John Kerry will lose in a landslide on November 2. A landslide we haven’t seen the likes of since Dukakis. People are tired of partisan politics, tired of your whining and crying, and tired of your tedious bashing of our president.
Zell Miller’s speech should have been a wake-up call to you all. I applaud him for his willingness to step forward and say what should of been said years ago. Trying setting aside your insipid rhetoric and rantings long enough to absorb what Miller so eloquently stated.
In closing, here’s a little something for you to suck on while you fein your dismay at this opposing viewpoint, and heighten your illogical and psychotic anger at President Bush… What is the definition of insanity? Repeating the same action and expecting a different result. You ran a laughable liberal from Massachusetts for president once before and he was trounced. Now you’re trying it again and expecting a different result. Sounds pretty insane to me.
Get your crying towels out ladies and gentlemen, election day is coming and you’re not going to like the outcome—-nor the next four years.
Posted by Robert on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:22 PM
Joanne Roush wrote:
“Extremist fundamentalists of all persuasions are currentlly attempting to have their way. Have you read Tom DeLay? He’s determined to turn the USA into a theocracy - Christian of course.”
His minions are no doubt hiding explosives in some school library as we speak.
I have read DeLay, and I completely disagree with his ideas on moving religion ‘back’ into government. But his beliefs, however misguided, are in no sense comparable to the intentions of the Islamist mullahs and the murderous actions of their followers. Beware moral relativism in this regard:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/77
Most definitely, we’re not in Lake Woebegon Anymore.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:26 PM
<<Right now, IMHO, it is imperative to break the back of the PNAC’ers and throw them out the door along with their dreams of further military misadventures and global corporate pillage. It’s time to make peace with our allies, identify common threats, and work together to contain and eliminate them. And I am not speaking only of Islamic extremist terrorists. I refer as well to the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of all types, environmental degradation, the continuing cycle of famines and pestilence, the impending crises in fossil fuel and clean water supplies, and the increasing threats on the communicable disease front.
It’s popular to say that only America can lead on these issues, but I’m not convinced that’s true. I believe it is true that if America refuses to participate, much less lead, that the world will isolate us as best they can and hold us at bay by any means necessary. >>
Well said, Joanne. But don’t you think that part of the PNAC’s “thinking” while in their tank is “Why do they hate us?” I mean, look how fast the “well-thought” answers came to that question when it was asked, once. It’s clear they’ve done lots of thinking about the rest of the world. We didn’t even have to think about it again after they told us. They’ve got it all worked out for those “Aye-raaabs” and them Brazilians, wait, do they have black folks in Brazil, will we have to liberate them too? Well, there’s a whole lot of them kinda things I know they’ve got all figgered out. Don’t you just feel a great sense of safety and security knowing that they’ve got it all handled and we should just get back to shopping, until the next color code elevation and further instruction?
Wish I had the sustained sense of security that those who’ve put their trust in Bush seem to have. It’s second only to the zealotry fundamental Christians have that their proclaimation of the name Jesus is their ticket to Heaven. Very, very scary!
I wish, Joanne, that I felt at least 2 degrees better about Kerry than I do about Bush. It will be a sad, sad day if/when I cast a vote on 1 degree of difference in the direction we’re currently headed.
Thank you for your contribution to this dialogue and to positive change on the planet.
Peace out for tonight all.
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:30 PM
Any of you milquetoast minions of the left wing want to step up and defend the hypocrisy of this little incident…?
Just last week, the Kerry bunch and their liberal legion of Democrat media spinners were whining and crying from coast to coast on radio, TV, and in newspapers about those mean old Republicans who were in New York having their convention at Madison Square Garden, and saying mean-spirited things about poor ol’ Kerry. At the same time, countless numbers of angry, inmature, and sometimes violent protestors were repeatedly marching in the streets outside and even posing as Republican delegates and volunteers inside in an attempt to disrupt, disturb, and dispute.
Did Republicans chastise them, harass them, or heaven forbid, harm them? Of course not! The media would have had a field day if they had. And besides, the Republicans are not typically the unstable, quick to anger imbeciles that you tend to collect and cultivate in your party.
So what happens just days later, today, in Cincinnati, when ONE middle-aged man stands up and attempts to challenge Mr. Flip-Flop, John Kerry during a campaign stop and ask him a simple question in a crowd of hundreds of so-called “peace loving” Democrats?
Democrats in the audience immediately attack and assault him, twist him into a headlock and shove him to the ground! Area TV newscasts aired the incident in its entirety and it was viciously violent and absolutely appalling.
Someone needs to remind these hypocritical low brows that there’s still a thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this country. And it applies to Republicans also! This is the same “broad-minded” bunch who constantly screams about civil rights, right to question authority, right to protest, etc., etc., etc. Give peace a chance? Give me a break…
I guess the man should have instead grabbed his peace sign necklace, his Birkenstock sandals, and his “I HATE BUSH” sign and then stood up. Then they would have welcomed him with flowers and open arms! Maybe it’s time they changed the Democrat symbol from a donkey to a hippo-crit.
Let’s see if the national media splashes this alarming footage all over the news again and again and again. Not likely as it wouldn’t damage or demean President Bush.
But they’ll continue to tell us how bad the events at Abu-Ghraib prison were. Oh, I get it… A handful of American soldiers haze a few Iraqi criminal prisoners and the liberal US media goes ballistic. But Americans attack and violently assault another American in public and there’s no problem—nor will there probably be any arrests! And will they demand Kerry apologize for the violent attack that happened right in front of him? Of course not.
The bottomline is your nothing more than a bunch of hypocritical, hysterical, half-wits. Have a nice day.
Posted by Robert on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:48 PM
6gun
Good morning. I just had to say that Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress which is an impeachable offense. And well he should have been I might add. Having his nob polished in office is of no consequence as far as a point of law. Strictly between his wife, his God if he has one and himself.
I really need to hit the hay pardner catch you tomorrow.
Lyle
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:55 PM
Robert, it’s too late and totally unnecessary for me to go into a frothing, adjective assigning vilification of an entire population of loosely-lumped together individuals as you seem to need to in order to lend credibility to your points. I will, however, simply ask you a few questions that came to mind while reading your rant.
You have related a pretty awful sounding story about the actions of a few people who behaved,it sounds like, inappropriately or even criminally. I’m not sure exactly why you hold John Kerry responsible for that, directly or even in the most remote stretch. In case you haven’t read any of my posts, I’m not a Kerry supporter, and I, like probably most of the other attendees at this event, or republicans at various events, or liberals at various events, or anyone else who’s not unstable, would never endorse these types of behaviors. Why must you indict every “liberal” you’ve clearly identified by their footwear and a whole laundry list of lifestyle choices you know to be components present in all “liberals”, for the actions of a few assholes? You liken this to the “Hazing” by a “few soldiers at Abu Graib???” What kind of “X” are you getting that so revises reality? Whoa, you probably have a good shot at a writing slot for Limbaugh with that kind of relativism.
Since you brought up the free-speech thing, tho, and you feel that Kerry should make some public apology to the man for the hinderance of his free speech, I’m wondering if you might remember the details of the arrests, detainments and denials of diplomas of students at a college who stood and silently turned their backs on Bush during his visit to their school during the last year sometime. Sorry, I don’t remember the dates or details, as its another one of those stories I’ve tried to block out of my beliefs in the assault on civil ilberties implemented by this administration and carried out by “law enforcement” with our tax dollars. If anyone can remember the school and/or has any reference links, help me out.
Anyway, Robert, I’m wondering if you heard about that, and whether or not Bush has made a public apology for the detention, harassment and suppression of the “free speech” of those silent students, peacefully protesting him at their school that day. Maybe they were all packin’ pot?
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:17 PM
Kim,
Why do I want to hold Kerry accountable for that incident? Because apparently that is the same standard that Democrats have held George W. Bush to for the past four years. Is that equally unfair? They blame Bush for everything. Period. If the coffee is cold at the White House, I guarantee you that the DNC is issuing a press release on it, condeming Bush for his failure to keep coffee at its previous temperature. “It’s the coldest coffee since Hoover was in the White House!”
Isn’t it annoying to have to read, endure, and hear such drivel as I posted in the previous e-mail? And you only had to deal with it for a minute or two. Hopefully, every Bush-basher on this message board—and there’s clearly a nest of them—that so freely, smuggly, and willingly spews their own version of such baseless partisan rhetoric at every turn, will now, even if it’s for a brief moment, understand exactly how I have felt for four long years as I have listened to supposedly otherwise intelligent Democrats attack and belittle President Bush. What happened to the days that Americans showed the president a modicum of respect, even if they didn’t agree with him?
If they truly believe the garbage they have been hauling during this time then I actually pity them and hope that they will someday evolve from their ignorance. And these type of message boards are a prime breeding ground for the “me too’s” of the world.
Just read these silly, swooning, senseless posts: “Oh Garrison, I love you because you bash the Republicans! That makes me feel so good about my own pathetic existence because rather than get out and make a difference in the world, I would rather be miserable and blame Bush for every single problem in the world today. Aren’t we so superiorly intelligent, Garrison??”
If it wasn’t so sickening and such a sad reflection on the person posting the message, I would laugh.
In order for a person to actually believe many of the horrible things Bush has been accussed of during his four years, that person would have to be so cynical, so misinformed, so blind, so dark-hearted, and so inherently mean-spirited, they should seek serious professional psychological attention immediately.
I don’t know about you, but frankly, I’m up to my neck in my distaste and dissatisfaction with the attacks from both sides. Neither side has a higher moral ground here. And when I read such silliness that Garrison apparently penned, and the subsequent flood of “so glad someone said it” messages, it just makes me want to puke.
For four years I’ve listened to it but now I’ve decided that the issues we face are far too important to permit these childish adults free rein. I’m their worst nightmare: A Republican who is no longer going to sit by and politely accept their elitist and harmful antics. Enough is enough. Bring it on and buckle up, it’s going to be as rough and tumble and as politically bloody as they choose to make it. No holds barred.
I intend to counter them at every turn, to educate where they dare to obscure, and to vanquish them and their kind when election day comes. It’s my duty as a citizen, it’s my responsibility as a concerned American, and it is absolutely my pleasure and my newfound passion.
Posted by Robert on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:05 PM
<Not sure why you feel you have to reply in multiple posts. Guess it’s number=strength of argument. For the sake of readers I’ll condense everything in one post.>
“Where in fact did I say that “if a lot of people say something it must be true”?”
Your quote, “There are 254 Swift Boat Vets for Truth but barely more than about a dozen guys for Kerry (not a terribly good ratio).” You’re arguing that there’s more truth in numbers. Sounds pretty good, except the prudent person would look at the circumstances to see if those allegations can be supported. Here’s where the SWIFTVETS failed.
“And then you turn around and tell me that “9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me. Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true.” “
Sure, it’s called turning your argument against you, I’m trying to point it out in terms you understand. Thanks for agreeing with me 254 people doesn’t = truth.
Funny how the argument changes as long as the situation fits your side. Jessica Lynch = hero (and I agree) despite not firing, John Kerry = Not a hero despite 5 medals because he didn’t take a bullet, just shrapnels.
“Acutually, sir, a self-inflicted wound DOES NOT qualify by Navy standards. It has to result from enemy fire.”
From Army Regulation 600-8-22 (I assume the Navy is similar, go look for yourself).
“(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, EXCEPT when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.”
Now you’re going to argue it wasn’t ‘in the heat of battle’.
From Kerry’s diary regarding the action, which you guys are happy to quote:
“The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.”
Sounds like battle to me.
“Actually, sir, some of his other medals are suspicious and there is already a full investigation underway.”
Nope, you pointed out ONE, the ‘Silver Star with V’ typo. The worst that will there is that the (probably retired) clerk will get diciplined for sloppiness. Just more dirty tricks, implying that there some kind of conspiracy when there are none.
“Why is it that when a Kerry “discrepancy” is uncovered, it warrants only a casual “so what” when in fact he’s the one running for President on his Vietnam record, but when you find a discrepancy within 254 Swift Boat Vets, it yields a “See there, they’re all a bunch of liars”?”
Because there’s been no proof (beyond questionalbe affadivits from people who weren’t there) that any of the allegations are true?
“Yep! Read the quote by Kerry. You’re spinning again.”
Ha, black calling kettle. You guys are spinning minor things into (gasp!) conspiracies and our rebuttals are spins?
“You get into the semantics of the word “enlist” “
Only because I did my research. Did you? Or do you consider talk-radio research? If you going to to nit-pick the meanings of Kerry’s words, try using the right terminology first.
“The date of King’s assassination was April 4, 1968. However, Kerry was not yet serving in Vietnam, but aboard the Navy frigate USS Gridley. According to Kerry’s campaign website it was not until Nov. 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.”
You ignored the part above that: “Feb 1968
Deployed to Western Pacific aboard the USS Gridley and requests duty in Vietnam”
And this “February 9, 1968 USS Gridley departs for a Western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment, to engage in operations in support of the Vietnam War. Ship spends time in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam, at Subic Bay in the Philippines and in Wellington, New Zealand”
Navy personnel frequently refer to cruise off Vietnam as being ‘in Vietnam’. And last I checked, Gulf of Tonkin is Vietnam, there was a little incident there as I recall.
“Trying to change the subject from John Kerry to your take on Judicial Watch is a transparent attempt at obfuscation?”
Are you asking me or is this a statement? Sorry, but for prudent people the source is just as important as the allegations.
“Would a negative claim against John Kerry have to come from a left-wing group for you to take it seriously?”
No, but it would take a neutral or non-partisan group for me to take it seriously. Sorry, but the right-wing has a nasty habit of making wild accusations against their enemies.
“A typo? Adding a V is a typo? No. Spelling “Silver Star” as “Sliver Satr” would be a typo. Not adding a V. It’s very specific. You’re spinning again. Making excuses.”
Take a look at the form. Looks like someone copied the ‘with V’ from the Bronze Star right above it.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Since Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’ why is this even an issue? Seriously, if you guys want credibility, you’re going to have to look for something better than that. Crying ‘Wolf!’ over nothing isn’t going to help.
“You also didn’t address the other discrepancies cited in the complaint.”
I’m not going to waste my time on tripe. They’re been addressed many many times at various sites if one cares to look. Last I checked, the burdle of proof rest on the accuser. Frankly, there’s not enough basis in the claims I’ve addressed so far to make any of them credible. You guys are just trying to throw tons of mud to see which sticks. I’m not playing that game.
“And simply saying that “it’s not factual or news-worthy” doesn’t really MAKE THE CASE that it isn’t factual or news-worthy does it? Neigh-saying is not an argument, and that something is inconvenient to your ideology is not a criterion for veracity or significance.”
Hey, I’m just trying to help you out with your ‘the media is against me’ paranoia.
You can’t prove a negative, so there’s no point for me to go there.
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:06 AM
That does it. I am no longer a fan of Prairie Home Companion. Anybody who can libel the President like that, one of the few honorable men we’ve had in office in awhile, doesn’t deserve my support. He’s taking advantage of the fact that a public official can’t sue for defamation and that’s despicable in my book.
Posted by Pat on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:36 AM
I really enjoy Mr. Keillor’s programs and value his opinion. Unfortunately, like most “entertainers” that stray from their world of fictious fantasy, Mr. Keillor view of reality doesn’t pan out. It’s unfortunate that he has chosen to use his “soapbox” for political campaigning. At least “Arnold” got himself elected to office to legitimize his political strategy.
Posted by Bill on Sep 9, 2004 at 3:49 AM
Lyle,
The religious context of the Founders was a competition of Christian sects. Read your Federalist Papers. The Constitution was written, in part, to moderate the competition of Christian sects who were at each other’s throats in the old country.
Federalist No. 2 Author: John Jay
* * *
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people
descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
Federalist No. 10 Author: James Madison
* * *
A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.
Federalist No. 51 Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
* * *
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:37 AM
Kim,
Three times I gave you the benefit of the doubt and led you by your lengthening nose thru the sheer idiocy of your assertion that the President needed, at any moment deemed by you leftist asses, to drop his tools and undergo your own pet inquisition.
Yet, burdened by your obvious mental deformity, you have the supreme arrogance to come back with the rot above. Your lunacy and self-impressed holiness obviously know no bounds, as is consistent with your lying kind. You cannot argue your own points, you endulge your own stereotypes and condescending agenda no matter what fantastic path they lead you down. You’ve made such a fool out of yourself you need little from anyone else.
You possess not a shred of integrity, nor can you, or do you even care, to discuss real issues about real problems in a realistic world. You make me as heartsick as all the other mentally disturbed, pathologically dishonest, one issue Leftist Globalist Socialists who pollute this country.
Kim, you’re a liar and a cheat. You don’t deserve freedom, much less kindly explanations of your mental disease labored over by people infinitely more researched and fair-minded that you.
Now that you’ve outed your little hysterical victimizing character, how about you tell me, right now, just why we shouldn’t demend to your holy UN that France be thrown out on their stinking, cheese-eating surrender-monkey ears. In fact, why don’t you tell us exactly the US shouldn’t evacuate the UN bldg before razing it to the ground after the UN food programs ended up killing American soldiers.
Come on, Kim, stop lying thru your teeth and spouting all manner of nonsensical, seditionist hate talk and act like an American for a change. Or, like I say, get out.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:01 AM
Wow, 6Gun, nice chit chat. Now remind us kind hearted readers; what division of the SS did you serve? If you do respond, dear sweet tempered 6Gun, try your best not to use profanity (profanity is a writing tool for those with weak minds and weak arguments).
Posted by L.C. on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:30 AM
How Sad. I have enjoyed Keillor’s shows and comments since the 80’s. I have been a number one fan. I have almost been fanatical in my appreciations for this great humor.
Consequently, I was very discouraged to read this rambling article filled with such venom, falshood and rancor. Garrison, you poor man! You have no solid foundation.
Posted by Dick Schinke on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:34 AM
This is my THIRD appeal. PLEASE unsubscribe me from the inundation of comments on Garrison Keillor’s article which are forwarded to me by the score.
Please do whatever it takes to relieve me of this truly onerous burden.
The Keillor piece, by the way is terrific.
ErnestNagy@Starpower.net
Posted by Ernie Nagy on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:54 AM
I came to DC as a Reagan Republican in 1982 to go to college. After the tax reform of ‘86, when my poverty level income tax went up $600, while my upper middle class dad’s went down $800, I stopped allying myself blindly to either party, since both screwed me.
Unlike most people, I have gotten more liberal, rather than conservative with age. Mr. Keillor’s article is superb.
Mr. Oplas sums up the way the Republican party has gone since Reagan. Under Reagan, questioning policy and speaking out was being a good citizen participating in the process. Now, it makes you unpatriotic. Political discourse has been replaced by vitriol.
I can only hope that Mr. Kerry sees this article and uses some of the great phrases.
Posted by Kevin on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:56 AM
Fresh outta your first year, L.C.? You ideas and Stereotyping 101 are for someone far, far less capable than I. Child. Grow up.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 7:04 AM
I am so worried about our country, particularly since I have some friends and family ... decent, well-educated people, who simply believe totally in Bush and the direction the Republican party is moving in. It so has echoes of Germany and those who blindly followed Hitler.
Posted by ellie osborne on Sep 9, 2004 at 7:09 AM
Thank you, Thank you, Garrison Keillor. It inspired me once more to try to get to the suits around Kerry, who do not seem interested in VOTES. I promised to give $1000 if a local fundraiser here in Maine for Kerry could get my letter full of Strong Comebacks for Kerry to the suits, or better, Teresa. Kedrry is letting down the side by his metooism.
Posted by Nancy S. Struever on Sep 9, 2004 at 7:13 AM
“A. Oplas” writes: “...You are a talented, likeable man…
much more likeable when you keep out of the
political debate….”. What a great way for this person to make your point, Mr. Keillor! Any good American SHOULD BE PART OF THE “political debate”!
Mr. Keillor, you are exactly correct!
Posted by Steevo on Sep 9, 2004 at 7:26 AM
Ernie, you’re only subscribed because you checked the box to BE subscribed. Go to the bottom of the box in which you type your pleas for release and UNCHECK the damn box!
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 7:53 AM
Mr Nagy,
At the bottom of the emails there should be a stop receiving notifications link which should allow you to stop comments being emailed.
Incidently, Keillor is correct as far as he goes, but he’s one-sided. Both mainstream parties are increasingly elitist. In this good cop, bad cop scenario the American public are the losers.
Posted by gha on Sep 9, 2004 at 7:55 AM
Thank you dear sweet-tempered 6Gun for your non-profanity ridden reply. It’s good to know that fine capable intellectuals such as your charming self can write sentenses without using harsh words. I was motivated to reply to your Hallmark sentiment to Kim, “Kim, you’re a liar and a cheat. You don’t deserve freedom, much less kindly explanations of your mental disease labored over by people infinitely more researched and fair-minded that you.” It just seemed so…oh, I don’t know…Precious Moments. I do wish you the best of luck in the future and I hope that you took my SS comment as the good natured joke I meant it to be.
Love,
Your Biggest Fan
Posted by L.C. on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:02 AM
Geoff,
Here’s a fairly amazing account of French (and German) arms, strategic parts, and support going to Iraq while the latter was under UN sanctions:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm
If you get to the end, you’ll see that the Bush administration (Powell) has gone overboard (excessively, IMHO) to de-emphasize these activities in the interest of reaching an accomodation with the French. I doubt Kerry could (or should) do more.
MN - I’ve been following your links today and here’s what I’ve seen:
One from the Telegraph that states that a Muslim cleric is having his residency status reevaluated by British authorities based on extremist statements to his congregation which may or may not be considered inciteful. IMO appropriate response to one suspected of criminal activities. Were he residing here, he probablly would have disppeared into our new gulag shortly after 9/11 along with an unknown number of residents who have yet to be heard from.
One from a blog that offers interpretation and analysis, not news in the sense of reportage of fact. The article you referenced implies a vast Muslim conspiracy has been in place since 1922 to take over the USA. So far they don’t seem to have accomplished a great deal in that arena. Looks like the Crusaders are on top of that effort.
One from the Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times which can hardly be considered a news-paper. It is a propaganda vehicle for an international criminal who has recently crowned himself the King of Peace and declared himself to be the second coming of Christ. Incidentally, this was done in the Senate Office Building with the participation of a number of elected officials. Hello? The lights are on, but is anybody home there? Maybe you should move back to Minnesota, since you’ve stated that your politics became so muddled when you moved out east.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:34 AM
Ooh, I wish I’d written that! Many, many thanks, Garrison…
Posted by Rev. M. Lahey on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:35 AM
Well, the “Washington Timss,” a wholly owned subsidiary of the Moonies, should really be taken with a grain — no, make that a block — of salt….You can get more facts from “The Onion.”
Posted by Anna on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:37 AM
Garrison, you represent the values of average Americans better than anyone on the “hill”. Please consider taking a sabbatical from your current day job and running for office in ‘08. If an actor and a pro-wrestler can do it, why can’t you? You’ve got the gift of gab, maybe you should take a stab (at it)!
Posted by Joel Gould on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:57 AM
MN,
Thanks for the article.
Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me, not one bit. My long-time hunch is that the French government has been, off and on, sort of friendly with Saddam Hussein in any case for quite some while. In fact, I don’t think it far-fetched to assume that that was the case way back at the time of Desert Storm and even before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Somehow, when President Bush’s father was President, he managed to trump any possible hangup France had at the time in joining a coalition against Iraq. France swallowed any misgivings they may have had and consequently joined in for the ‘91(?) war. A credit to President Bush’s father, IMO.
The irksome question then still remains—again, IMO, granted—how come Bush’s father was able to get France to swallow any misgivings arising out of undue coziness with Iraq and join the first war, whereas Bush Senior’s son couldn’t get France to join for the second?
Honestly, I’m not gunning for some “gotcha” question here. I don’t pretend to know the answer myself. I’m simply interested in any thoughts you may have on why Bush’s son failed at what Bush’s father had successfully achieved, when it came to bringing both France and Germany around. Please, what, if anything, had changed in the meantime to make Bush’s son less successful? Sincere thanks.
Looking to the future, it is possible, I suppose, that Kerry as President may not have the good luck that Bush’s father had with Continental Europe either.
But, if that’s the case, is there then any way we can think up whereby
A) a Breslan or a Madrid can be successfully forestalled/prevented in the heart of Continental Europe and, _most_ importantly of all,
B) cities like Hamburg and other critical metropolitan centers throughout Continental Europe be more effectively cut off as potential “oxygen” footholds for Al Qaeda staging areas (which, tragically, is what Hamburg became)?
That’s ultimately the question I care about most. I don’t expect you to have a magic answer, of course. Neither do I. But please address this inquiry in some way, if you possibly can.
Again, sincere thanks,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:57 AM
Somebody sent me this trinket.
“Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.”
I know it’s easier to point to the French, but perhaps we should examine how many dictators we’ve armed, including Saddam.
Posted by Kevin on Sep 9, 2004 at 9:14 AM
Joanne Roush,
Oh, sorry to aggravate you with the source. Actually, the article is the first of three excerpts of Gertz’ book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053153/qid=1094749959/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5169543-8669734?v=glance&s=books
Muddled? I never ‘stated’ that…I’m a social moderate and a fiscal conservative who dislikes big government and big business. That’s not inconsistent. I hope it’s the future of the Republican party, which appears to be heading in that direction.
Perhaps I’ve confused you because I’m not expressing extreme positions.
Geoff - I’ve been following your lines of inquiry through your posts and I’m curious about something. Why do you identify Hamburg, in particular, as an incubator for Al Quaeda activities? In my reading, it seems to me that a number of communities here in the US could be pointed to as well. And do we really know that the German authorities were unaware of and/or not keeping these people under surveillance? And not communicating with our clearly FUBAR intelligence agencies as to what they were discovering if anything?
Based on the de facto evidence of no major attacks on a par even with Madrid in either Germany or France, is it unreasonable to assume that both have made a successful effort to interdict such activity within their borders? I know many believe that they have appeased Islamic terrorists by refraining from joining the fracas in Iraq, but is that even the likeliest of scenarios? Or shall we attribute their freedom from major terrorist events to dumb luck? Could it be that the Germans and French have long experience in combatting domestic terrorism and that through a combination of diplomatic effort and targeted intelligence activity they have acted effectively to protect their populations? Could the same be said of our country in view of the fact that there has been no repeat of 9/11? I can’t help noticing that we’ve had problems here with suspects having to be released and cases dropped by the Justce Department recently. I also can’t help noticing that we have repeated information leaks, frequent warnings of danger, and have failed to install necessary security on much of our infrastructure including ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and even airports. This despite much public outcry, ballyhoo and billions in expenditures.
As to the success of Bush I in forming a more credible coalition than Bush II, perhaps it was the difference in goals for the two missions. Just for starters, the mission was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and in the process destroy or severely limit his capability to act beyond his own borders for some time. Having established this goal, and made a deal with our allies to obtain support, once that mission was accomplished, everyone did as agreed and packed it up and went home. No going on to Baghdad and deposing Saddam, even if it could have easily been done at that point. Bush 41 honored the deal he made with our allies.
Bush II clearly identified a very different goal this time around, and many of our traditional allies took a pass. Having long histories with colonialism, and occupation from both sides of the equation, I think this was a particularly unappealing adventure. In addition, the formation of the EU and its subsequent growth into an economic powerhouse rivaling the US has given ‘old Europe’ more of a sense of autonomy from US interests in recent years.
What is so fascinating to me is the British experience. I am intrigued by the fact that despite an enormous Muslim population, they also have not experienced a major terrorist event. They certainly can’t be accused of being other than our most vigorous supporter in Iraq.
What is your take on that?
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 9:31 AM
MN - Sorry to have aggravated you with a critique of your links. No, really. Now I followed the link to Gerz’s book and read the liner notes, reader reveiws and was fascinated to see the other books most frequently ordered or considered of interest to purchasers of Gerz’s book. I think I’ll go get it from my library today.
One reader review stated that Gerz identifies three main goals:
“The bottom line on his conclusions is that we need 1. good reliable intelligence 2. the ability to execute quickly on that information 3. cooperation from the global community.”
It may surprise you to know that I agree completely and see no indication that this administration can execute effectively on either a strategic or tactical basis in any of these areas.
It does no good whatsoever to pretend that the USA arms industry is not an ongoing major player in this problem. We create most of the new technologies of death, and then we bestow them upon a waiting world. We arm tyrants and train terrorists and torturers with OUR TAX DOLLARS (excuse me for shouting) and then we are dismayed and outraged when they turn against us. Just like the morons who keep pit bulls and then are horrified and sorrowful when their own children are bitten, rather than just the mailman or a neighbor.
Sorry about the reference to your move from the Midwest as a source of your apparent confusion. No, really. I think you’re really trying to make sense of all this and I’m surprised you haven’t acknowledged our own part in the problems that concern you. Blameless victims? None of those here on this board.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 9:49 AM
It’s a real loss you can’t appreciate my fight-fire-with-fire tactics, L.C. Whatever shall I do now?
Speaking your mind is only allowed on the Left, where profanity and the blackest mendacity are merely the signs of perfectly righteous indignation.
Leftist ends are always justified by their lying, misrepresenting, anarchistic, profane means. I’m well aware of the slope of that playing field.
As proof, here’s the billionaire wife of the Man Who Would Be King (but who hasn’t answered reporter’s questions in a month and hasn’t answered ours about why he should be President EVER) speaking her, um, mind:
http://www.nbc10.com/politics/3717093/detail.html
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 9:53 AM
Kim, when I left the thread yesterday you were in a fairly cordial mood, and I was cordial back at you. But after reviewing the last few pages this morning, I see that at some point later in the discussion you began to get quite snotty. Well, I guess we’re done with the phony cordiality. Nevertheless, I will address your concerns about PNAC one more time. (And by the way, this is the last time I will be commenting on this manufactured issue.)
First, a little bit about your faux concern for a group of 911 victims that seek to badger the current administration. Look Kim, I’ve seen this particular group on TV, debating other groups of 911 victims with whom they disagree, and this group you’re talking about is headed up by agenda-driven liberals - regardless of their official claim of being “non-partisan”, and they do not in any way represent the majority of 911 victims. A real search for answers, my dear, begins with William Jefferson Clinton. He let Bin Laden get away, at least twice, even after the first WTC bombing, and after numerous other terrorist attacks against the United States. It’s all very well documented, there’s no dispute on this Kim, and you can start by reading a very thoroughly documented (and independently verifiable) book by Richard Miniter called, “Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failure Unleashed Global Terror”. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months, and the wholly unsupported accusation that I have heard from the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, that Bush knew beforehand, is the most vile and disgustingly gutless lie I have heard in recent memory.
One of your concerns is that not enough Republicans have heard of PNAC. Kim, you may have to come to terms with the fact that PNAC is simply a conservative Washington think-tank. Nothing more, nothing less. Washington is full of them. Conservative, liberal, and otherwise. All think-tanks have a published agenda, nothing secret. PNAC wields no secret behind-the-scenes power. Every administration is informed by various think-tanks, conservative or liberal. And despite what some left-wing, agenda-driven, conspiracy-theorist website may tell you, there’s nothing new or unprecedented here Kim, do you understand that this is SOP? The best way to avoid people manipulating your ignorance is to not be so damned ignorant.
If memory serves, your most direct question addressed specifically to me was something like, “Why wasn’t PNAC mentioned at the RNC last week?” Well Kim, I already answered that, but I’ll try again. First, instead of asking why WASN’T it mentioned at the RNC last week, perhaps you should establish why SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN. We’ve been over this Kim. The PNAC agenda in its entirety is not one and the same with that of the RNC. If there’s some overlap and similarity here or there, these are just tangential connections and nothing more.
Kim, I’m not trying to be mean here, and I’m really not trying to insult you outright, but I have to be honest and say that you may be the most paranoid conspiracy-theorist I have ever come across. Again, I’m not trying to offend you Kim, but your irrationality is off the charts. And one of the signs that it is, is the fact that you expect others to share your obsession, and you become frustrated upon learning that they do not. Kim, you need to accept that there are going to be people in this world that do not think we ought to ask the French for permission to defend ourselves. And you need to accept that there are groups of very smart people that care very much about this nation, particularly about their children, their grandchildren, and yes, the innocent children of others, both here and abroad, and that their interpretation of events might differ from yours, and that their proposals for solutions might not be submitted for you approval.
The fact that you’re so irrationally paranoid of a Washington think-tank while at the same time we have muslim terrorists now targeting children in their quest for world domination is inexplicable. Last week in Beslan, the suffering of these children was very great and prolonged. Some where shot. Some were stabbed. Some of the preteen girls were raped, and the rest were blown-up along with their helpless parents and teachers. Others died slowly from thirst, dehydration, and heat stroke - not allowed to use the water fountains, not allowed to use the restrooms, and not allowed to drink anything but their own urine.
And you? Your biggest fear, neigh, paranoid obsession, is a Washington think-tank! Your mentality on this is a prime example of liberal meltdown, of a paranoid dementia, of ideological insecurity, of cognitive dissonance that cleaves to intellectually indefensible positions as a face-saving mechanism. No amount of holding your hands over your ears and singing “La la la la la” is going to relieve the pressure Kim. And I know you’ll never change. You’re too far gone in the downward spiral of irrationality and you’re past the point of no return.
I know you want to “break the back” of PNAC. But in that they have a constitutional right to exist, despite your disapproval, and in that you have no ideological or intellectual means to counter their valid positions, you might have to accept their existence as a fact of life. But if it makes you feel any better, just remember you’re not entirely alone in this. There are others as paranoid and as void of the slightest perspective as yourself. And you people can feed off each other, encouraging one another in your obsessions over imaginary boogeymen, hold your candlelight vigils and whine aplenty, all while ignoring the very real dangers with which we are confronted.
Posted by Scott on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:04 AM
3gun and beam me up snotty: if either one of you ever had an original thought you probably would explode (personally I’m hopen you do finally get one;-)>.
You both are so exemplary of what is wrong with many people in this country and world today. Quite frankly you are unable to take facts and form a reasonable conclusion. I don’t know where you went wrong or what happened to you in your childhood but maybe some more drugs would help you out.
I read all your postings and then can’t figure out how you could possibly believe that crap. And if you do believe that crap then it so painfully obvious that there is a deep problem with what’s left of your thinkers.
Try meditation guys.
Creative thinking requires you to put two or more thoughts together and come up with a workable idea. You seem only to be able to repeat what you have been brainwashed into thinking. Then repeat it again and again.
Brainwashed by Brainwashington/Texas slime,
P.S. Thanks for the good words Joanne. Your a doll. Keep swingin. I lost count of the homeruns you have hit so far in this thread.
How many stikes do these suckers get, anyway?
There ooooooooooooooooooout here.
Tick tick tick tick…...1306 hours and 50 minutes…...that’s the clock runnin to show how long you got left before President Kerry is elected. Bye bye fellas.
Posted by JIMBOY on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:09 AM
A good night’s sleep will come when GWB is thrown out of the White House. I’m praying that will happen this year!
Posted by Jan on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:12 AM
Now 2 1/2 gun or snooty whichever it was that responded to my post that there are only two things you need to know about Kerry and Viet Nam, I think it was you 2gun. If all that crap your repeating about Kerry is suppose to make a difference then I guess your man bush’s past would also come into play and so with that said it would be a good idea if you (1 1/2gun(I think you see where this is going) don’t you 1gun)?
That you 1/2gun should kinda like drop that line of bs. Don’t ya think 0gun?
Wooooo now I finally got the name right, 0gun. You definately shootin blanks boy. Makin a whole lotta noise but not hittin nuttin. Ya’ll. Narly that sheepdip. Surfs up dude!!!!!!!
Posted by JIMBOY on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:28 AM
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001831.html
Kerry Honorably Discharged from Senate
(2004-09-09)—On a day when new allegations surfaced about George W. Bush’s National Guard service in 1972, Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry officially received his honorable discharge from the U.S. Senate.
The discharge, coming just four years before the end of his fourth Senate term, was granted to allow Mr. Kerry to “pursue other interests at a time when the nation has a surplus of senators,” according to the official discharge letter.
Mr. Kerry immediately defended himself against charges that he had sought special treatment due to his status as a presidential candidate.
“Despite allegations that I rarely attended Senate sessions, committee hearings and votes, and that I have introduced no significant legislation in the past 20 years, this honorable discharge proves that I have fulfilled my duty to the nation,” Mr. Kerry said.
The Vietnam veteran added that, “unlike Mr. Bush, I have not made my record of political leadership a campaign issue. Instead, I have stayed focused on my military service 35 years ago. After all, that’s what’s most important to ordinary Americans.”
Posted by Brooks on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:30 AM
Mr. Keillor’s way with words is fantastic. He’s hit every Republican pop up mole on the noggin. The image of wild swine crowding around the public trough is a vivid and accurate sketch of the reality. Mr. Keillor has pointed to the dragon’s vulnerability in its heaving chest at the point of 9/11. The overlords of opulence and surveillance tell us that 9/11 “changed everything,” yet the truth is than 9/11 itself changed nothing. The changes, virtually all of them wrongheaded and counter productive, have been made afterwards. 9/11 was a terrible event which the Republicans (and too many Democrats) are simply capitalizing on for their own petty gains. “Homeland Security” has nothing to do with real security and everything to do with distributing lucrative contracts to mainly Republican recipients fleecing the nation’s treasury.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:32 AM
Right On! How could any one , me included, a Republican, vote for Cheney-Bush et al draftdodgers after they initiated a war of choice with others blood? If anyone is unfit to command It is Bush-Cheney. I still do not know which is serving as President. Prefice serving with mis.
Posted by JiJim Hodges, Sr. on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:34 AM
[JR]
“Geoff - I’ve been following your lines of inquiry through your posts and I’m curious about something. Why do you identify Hamburg, in particular, as an incubator for Al Quaeda activities? In my reading, it seems to me that a number of communities here in the US could be pointed to as well.”
[GR]
Undoubtedly the case.
But I’ve been mentioning Hamburg solely because I’m concentrating for now on Continental Europe and because there was a recent article (may have been in the Wall Street Journal) that mentioned three Continental European capitals where either computers or similar materials were found relating to the nineteen hijackers of 9/11. The only city that my sieve-like brain seems to have retained of the three is definitely Hamburg, so I simply used that as a for-instance of disturbing activities in Continental European metropolises generally.
[JR]
“And do we really know that the German authorities were unaware of and/or not keeping these people under surveillance? And not communicating with our clearly FUBAR intelligence agencies as to what they were discovering if anything? “
[GR]
Yes, I recall when you made this point previously and, in fact, I acknowledged as much in my previous response but one to MN. Success there has been, yes. Efficiciency there has been, yes.
But in previously acknowledging your point, I also expressed concern, if you recall, about a certain cultural truculence in Continental Europe that may or may not be reflected in the debunking comments of one or two comedians over there concerning any Al Qaeda threat, and may or may not be due to any clumsiness on our part.
The fact that that attitude may or may not have impacted adversely on certain intelligence activities so far may not necessarily ensure that it could not impact adversely in terms of a future laxness down the road. The current truculence of Continental Europe is no doubt due to a number of factors (which may or may not include a possible clumsiness on our part in dealing with them, though certain Powell gestures may have ameliorated that), but it remains unfortunate and unhelpful, IMO.
Ultimately, all I’m concerned about is forestalling any laxness in the future, regardless of whether or not any clumsiness on our part was responsible for any truculence in the past, and regardless of whether or not past intelligence operations were fortunately immune to its effects.
It is simply more stable, IMO, to have everyone “reading out of the same book”, so to speak. If that entails refining the book a bit to accommodate our concerns, fine. And if that entails refining the book a bit to accommodate their concerns, also fine. Just so long as an alliance this crucial is as much in agreement as possible and as large as possible, IMHO.
That still leaves the overriding question I posed to MN. How most effectively can one address the apparent truculence in Continental Europe today _in_ _case_ it may lead to tragic carelessness on their part in future?
[JR]
“<SNIP> What is so fascinating to me is the British experience. I am intrigued by the fact that despite an enormous Muslim population, they also have not experienced a major terrorist event. They certainly can’t be accused of being other than our most vigorous supporter in Iraq.
What is your take on that? “
[GR]
Perhaps, it was vigilant intelligence in Britain’s case as well.
There is also, I gather, a certain impatience and vigilance within the Muslim communities as well. I recall, vividly, that, shortly after 9/11, a British imam exploded with fury to a British reporter:
“I wasn’t born yesterday; neither were most of the members of the congregation here. All of us smelled something was off when two or three interlopers started attending here and bothering my parishioners with all sorts of nonsense, talking violence and seemingly trying to win converts. No one listened to them, being quite exasperated with them instead. I finally had to call Scotland Yard.
“I said, ‘Look, you’ve got to remove these guys. They’re giving us the creeps, and no one here wants them or likes them. I want you to send some people over and simply escort these guys out of here. They’re not welcome.’
“No one came from Scotland Yard. So we’ve had to simply ignore these creeps as best we could, getting more frustrated and exasperated with Scotland Yard by the week. Can’t you understand we’re British citizens too? We’re entitled to protection just like anyone else. Why couldn’t they send someone to flush out these creeps? It’s an outrage! We were simply ignored!”
Interesting story, isn’t it? It’s occurred to me that it’s possible that something else was Britain’s friend here. Not just the readiness of the Muslim comunities to police themselves. It may also have been a higher level of education that protects them from paying serious attention to the kind of rot Al Qaeda and fellow travelers spout.
Anyway, just a thought.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:50 AM
Extra, Extra - especially for Robert! More fisticuffs at a Kerry rally! I take back what I said about some of you right wingnuts being pantywaists. It takes a really dedicated nut to take on a bunch of narly vets (Jimboy, darlin’, go read this one!).
Here’s your link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/3710608/detail.html
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:51 AM
P.S. I’ve looked all over for a link to the alleged incident regarding a Bushie beaten up at a Kerry event in Ohio. Anybody got a link to an actual news org on that? And don’t send me to any freeper sites - I’m talking local news media if possible.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:53 AM
“The image of wild swine crowding around the public trough is a vivid and accurate sketch of the reality.”
Wow, after claiming that anybody still drawing breath could see that the Left depends on images to make their postmodern, emotional, knee-jerk choices about the management of freedom in a hostile world, along comes one and lays it right out there.
Suggest one and all consider picking up a copy of The Vanishing Word by Hunt to get a grip on how we’ve turned from a nation of literate, critical thinkers to a land of relativistic images-centric sloths.
Thank’s Gregg, for signing up to the Kool Aid bowl in plain view. You and your Mr. Rogers pop-up moles have a nice day now.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:56 AM
JimBoy, I’m going to list all of the terribly clever things in your previous post that would clearly indicate you are my intellectual better:
1) “3gun” (rather than “6Gun”)
2) “beam me up snotty” (rather than “Scott”)
3) “If either of you ever had an original thought you probably would explode (personally I’m hopen you do finally get one…wink)
4) “Try meditation guys”
5) There ooooooooooooooooooout here.
6) Brainwashed by Brainwashington/Texas slime
That last one is my favorite.
I was also illuminated by your unique definition of creative thinking, and judging by your clever wordplay, I will not deny that you are an expert on the subject.
Additionally, I would say that your “creative” syntax is a positive testament to your mental prowess. You’re a credit to your cause JimBoy, and I know that the other liberals here are damn proud to have you on their side.
Lastly, if you would care to show some mercy, to help me out, would you please establish exactly how you came to know that we have been brainwashed (according to the dictionary definition of the word)? My small mind has so far not been able to grasp the concept that simply because I have the gall to actually have come to different conclusions than your own, that that in and of itself would lead one to believe I had been brainwashed. So please, explain yourself very thoroughly and specifically.
Also, in that you have not rebutted my last exchange with you, but rather skipped ahead and made the present insightful proclamation, would you help me to understand how that means you’ve won the argument?
Thank you JimBoy. I eagerly anticipate you putting me in my place again.
Posted by Scott on Sep 9, 2004 at 10:59 AM
“and claimed the right to know what books we read”
Garrison used words as icons, no facts, just allusions to things the Democrats hate and accept as true. One error in fact is the quote above, which refers to the Patriot Act. It is a power the administration has and wants to keep, but this power was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Democratic Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object. In the house the bill was passed 357 to 66. Interestingly, there was more opposition in the Republican controlled chamber. I have heard an interview with one of the NY congressmen, I think it was Charles Rangel, complain about how no one read the USAPATRIOT Act before it was passed. Well whose fault is that?
Posted by Steve Dallas on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:00 AM
I’m not sure the second sentence of the quoted portion of Garrison’s message fits very well with the first sentence. Right now, it seems as if there are too many angry people on both sides to allow us to work together toward the many common goals that are trumpeted by almost all of us.
“This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.
This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.”
Posted by James Gooch on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:12 AM
Robert,take a chill pill dude.
You seem to have a problem with preserving nature,as in the form of ANYTHING.I guess that’s why you are a republican.Your president just wants to cut down all the trees,pollute the water,and the air.Now,I do understand that there is more money in selling bottled water,and it is economically better to grow tree plantations,rather than those dirty,diverse,unorganized virgin forests.NOT!
And of course what good is a backpack,other than to carry a bomb.Oh lord protect me from the mad bomber.Back packs are bad.I mean,they are efficeint carriers when you go into the woods.Oh No,not into the woods!
We all know that granola is the devils tool.I won’t go into the rest of the rant that you sprayed out.
I can’t address the democrat tirade that you went into eithe since I am worse than a democrat.I am an independent.Gasp!I will mention that when you talk about being hate obsessed that you might want to look into the mirror on that one,Bob.
You cite Zell(the madman)Miller as a role model.Whew that guy reminded me of a rabid dog,spittle flying and all.And when he wanted to challenge Cris Mathews to a duel,he was my hero.We should bring back duelling,as a way to thin out the politicians.I’m for it,how about you Bob?
That whole paragraph above of rant above the Zell Miller reference had so much spittle on it that I had a hard time seeing a reason to discuss it.
Your definition of isanity was—-Ah,different.What I see as insane is destroying a countrys water supplies by ignoring the EPA and allowing coal-fired power plants to not clean up their emmissions,even though the technology is available right now to eliminate 90%of their mercury emissions.I guess that making money is more important than protecting pregnant mother and their babys!You do realize that mercury,from coal-fired power plants, causes retardation in babys?I thought that the republican party was against killing babys,ie. abortion,but I guess it’s ok to have live retarded babys.Now that is insane to me.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:28 AM
Michael Bierbaum wrote:
Response to Scott:
“hurting yet? I hope so.”
“like a baby to a tit”
“Ouch, that’s gotta hurt!”
You seem quite intent on causing me pain or personally insulting me. I certainly did not resort to that type of tactic, nor do I wish you any pain or bodily harm nor do will I insult your intelligence in this forum.
—————
On the other hand, you may just be a thin-skinned liberal that doesn’t know a figure of speech when he sees one.
Posted by Scott on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:28 AM
Thank you Garrison: Recently I received via email the following from a Republican. She said it was well worth reading. And she was right. Read on.
This is well worth reading
Subject: The Fall Of A Republic
I remember reading this when I was quite young and thinking that was hogwash it would never happen to us. Ha! Just look at where we are now. At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior. “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.” “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith , From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.”
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, >Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent >Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore=127 million, Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore=580,000. Bush=2,2427,000
States won by: Gore=19, Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore=13.2, Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare…”
Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the “complacency and “apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake in this Election Year and that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.”
*****************************************
I have lived in big cities all of my life. I got my education, raised a family, paid taxes, voted. No one in my family has been in jail; no one in my family has been on welfare; no one in my family is standing on a corner drunk and/or drugged begging for dimes and quarters.
Be very careful Republicans. You forget that we are all Americans and these comparisons are foolish, ignorant and dangerous. Can it be possible that we want our government to be of those who think this way?
Mr. Bush pays farmers not to farm; he pays oil men to cap their wells; he pays welfare to those who live in areas that are not cities but they, too, are on welfare because the jobs are not there in that so-called sprawling wonderland. Mr. Bush is big business and big business is doing very well, especially when they outsource our jobs to make even more money.
So from an old woman I say, Republicans—Shame on You! Democrats—get out and vote because “apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom” be it in city, on farm, in the town, on a college campus, or on a ranch!
Posted by Grandma on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:39 AM
Right on, Grandma!
Posted by L.C. on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:47 AM
Well,it the rant and rave hour from Robert,the most sane person that I can remember since Zell(the maddog)Miller.
As I remember over 700 demonstrators were arrested at the RNC,bob.5oo were released the next day due to incorrect arrest procedures.I believe that there is STILL the right of public assemblege,bob.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:48 AM
Oh,I forgot.Hey Bob,those few prisoners that were “hazed” weren’t as bad as the one that was killed.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:53 AM
Well, Scott, I should hope to be so psychic as to ascertain, diagnose and deride another person’s entire agenda and character based on a few posts raising issues about the associations, agendas and actions of our leadership.
“Leftist, paranoid, oh, wait-the MOST leftist paranoid conspiracy theorist you’ve ever come across (wow, really?), ignorant, and on you rant with all the slur-a-day senselessness which seems to be the trade-mark technique employed by “Compassionate Conservatives” who are annoyed or inconvenienced by others’ questions or opinions. Does it even occur to you that you haven’t gotten anything remotely resembling that venom from me?
What in the name of all that’s decent compels you to go into a tirade, launch a character assault and misrepresent everything I’ve said, simply because I’ve suggested that we should ask some questions you don’t like and require some accountability for job performance of our leaders?
Regarding the PNAC, which is NOT as you’ve tried to frame it an obsessive quest of mine, but as I clearly stated, more than once- an agenda that I belive should be included in open-debate among those voting Republican, most of whom are totally unaware of its influence in the agendas of our current administration- BTW, you quoted a comment from Joanne as mine regarding breaking the back of the PNAC. I have simply and steadfastly stated that Republicans should be made fully aware of this agenda. I would like to think most of them are intelligent enough to decide for themselves how much or how little influence it should/does have on the agendas of our leaders and direction of our country.
You again assert the following:
<<your most direct question addressed specifically to me was something like, “Why wasn’t PNAC mentioned at the RNC last week?” Well Kim, I already answered that, but I’ll try again. First, instead of asking why WASN’T it mentioned at the RNC last week, perhaps you should establish why SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN. We’ve been over this Kim. The PNAC agenda in its entirety is not one and the same with that of the RNC. If there’s some overlap and similarity here or there, these are just tangential connections and nothing more. >>
Scott, if you believe that, you’re either delusional or a shill for the PNAC. It is a guiding doctrine of the current administration, many of whom authored and are ardently implenting its agenda, (NOT of the Republican party, which is precisely my point- and which you continue to try to misconstrue as my ignorance or confusion).
If you insist on denying this, you are either brainwashed or brain DEAD. If you have no issues with the PNAC, then what the hell is all this rhetoric about me being a paranoid conspiracy theorist for suggesting something so sensible? Paranoid? Look in the mirror.
Regarding the 9/11 investigations, for starters, how did they manage to get all “those people”, all millions of us, who believe that a thorough investigation of the events, anomalies and accountability of job fulfillment from our “leaders”, all of the people whom you have so generously generalized and dismissed as [idiots with an ulterior agenda]...how did they manage to get all of us on the one talk show you saw? I wasn’t contacted for that(??) I didn’t even see that show. It must have been quite an event. BTW, 400+ familes, I believe that is a rather significant percentage, rather than the very few you would assert, are sadly having to resort to the courts to get any cooperation from, let alone answers to highly relevant questions from our leaders charged with our nation’s security on 9/11. That you, or anyone else inexplicably attached to protecting ANYONE from accountability- would suggest that everyday Americans, let alone families of the victims of that tragedy- are attempting to further an agenda other than getting answers that WE ALL deserve…is too freaking wacked-out for words. What the hell motivates you? It boggles the mind to even try to imagine what you must tell yourself to NOT want to know everything you can about HOW that tragedy occurred and WHO at every position charged with preventing that (of which there are many) was NOT doing their job and WHY it would be in ANY WAY unusual that an investigation would continue until all those questions were answered and anyone/everyone (ir)responsible held accountable. HOW do you meld this in your mind into a vast conspiracy theory?
Scott, like I’ve said to 6Gun, I’m not giving any more energy to the downward spiral of assumptions and assaults you attempt to suck anyone who asks questions or has an opinion you don’t like into.
Sadly, it seems you can find plenty of people who will (as you say) cover their ears and chant la,la, la, or even better “left-wing, conspiracy wackos” to drown out any questions which may be embarrassing or uncomfortable for this administration to answer. Frighteningly, for many in this country, ignorance is still (temporarily) bliss.
Posted by Kim on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:54 AM
Keillor’s a Democrat?
Posted by Tom Morse on Sep 9, 2004 at 11:59 AM
——-Original Message——-
From: Evan Coyne Maloney [mailto:ecm@brain-terminal.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 2:10 PM
Subject: >bt: Brainwashing 101
Yesterday, I released a new video analyzing political correctness on
college campuses. If you’d like to see the video, you can find a link
to it here:
http://brain-terminal.com/video/brainwashing-101.html
A description of the video, “Brainwashing 101”, appears below. It’s
a bit of a departure from my previous work, and at 46 minutes, it’s
quite a bit longer, too. It will be premiering at a film festival in
Dallas, TX this upcoming weekend. You can find more information
about the film festival here:
http://afrfilmfestival.com/
Brainwashing 101 will be shown in the 3:00PM-5:30PM block on Saturday,
September 11th. If you decide to come, please stop by and say hi.
I’ve already gotten my first review, from Jonathan V. Last, the
online editor of the Weekly Standard, who wrote about it on
his website “Galley Slaves”. Jonathan says Brainwashing 101 is
“as funny and incisive as [Evan’s] shorts are, but much, much more
devastating.” The full review is here:
http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2004/09/brainwashing-101.html
I know from your e-mails that many of you were hoping for video reports
from the Democratic Convention in Boston and/or the Republican
Convention here in NYC. Unfortunately, I did not have time for either.
I’ve been editing this film since the beginning of June, and I just
barely finished it in time for the film festival. I hope you enjoy it.
Take care,
Evan
—-
Brainwashing 101
————————
Today, many American college campuses are dominated by the ideology of
political correctness. According to the tenets of political correctness,
the United States is the source of all the world’s troubles, capitalism
is evil, and people’s biological heritage makes them either “oppressors”
or “victims”. Political correctness does not tolerate dissent, so
students who disagree with the ideology are often punished. Tools like
speech codes are used by school administrators to enforce thought
conformity. At Cal Poly, one student endured a Kafkaesque disciplinary
ordeal that lasted more than a year and ended up in federal court—just
for posting a flyer announcing an upcoming event! Welcome to the world
of higher education today, where universities seem more intent on
teaching students what to think than how to think.
During the past year, I’ve been researching political correctness and
traveling around the country talking with students, faculty and
administrators. What I knew first-hand to be a problem when I was in
college a decade ago has only gotten worse. Much worse. Political
correctness is now a grotesque parody of itself, but as you can imagine,
the students affected aren’t laughing. Neither are the parents and
alumni whose money is used to prop up this system. Taxpayers have a
stake in this, too. All public universities are funded by tax money, and
almost every private university in the country is subsidized by
taxpayers in the form of government grants and tax breaks.
Chances are, if you’re an American, your money is being used to finance
higher education. You have a right to know what’s happening on our
campuses. You have a right to know how your money’s being spent.
On The Fence Films
—————————
A year ago today, I was sitting in a car staking out Michael Moore,
hoping to interview him about the documentary film business. Not only
did I manage to get the interview, but I found Moore to be surprisingly
encouraging to people like me who want to make films from a different
perspective. Shortly after I posted the resulting video—entitled
Michael Moore’s Call to Arms—Stuart Browning contacted me. Stuart is an
entrepreneur who started the software company Embarcadero Technologies.
In 2000, when Embarcadero went public, it was the most successful IPO of
the year, eclipsing even the much-hyped Krispy Kreme.
After seeing the Moore interview—which contained a not-so-veiled plea
for financing—Stuart wanted to know if I had any ideas for a
feature-length documentary. I did: even before I posted my very first
video on this site, I wanted to show the world the current state of
higher education.
Stuart liked the idea, but he wanted a second opinion. He called on
Blaine Greenberg, an attorney and 23-year veteran of the entertainment
industry. During his career, Blaine has represented major motion picture
studios, record labels, and celebrities like Angelina Jolie, James
Farentino, Joe Theismann and Vanna White. With that much industry
experience, Blaine has undoubtedly seen his share of bad ideas. Stuart
fully expected Blaine to talk him out of it. But instead, Blaine wanted
to be involved.
So, in the fall of 2003, the three of us formed On The Fence Films LLC,
the production company that would handle making the film.
The Long-Term Goal
—————————
Since then, we’ve logged thousands of miles, visited around a dozen
campuses, and interviewed scores of people. We still have many more
hours of footage to shoot, so we’ll be traveling all throughout this new
school year.
Our ultimate goal is to release a feature-length film in 2005. In order
to be successful, we’ll need to find distribution for our film.
Unfortunately, people in the film business generally don’t see the world
the way we do, and we know that’ll work against us. (Just ask Mel
Gibson.)
We’re releasing Brainwashing 101 now because we hope it’ll help us show
distributors that there’s an audience for this type of documentary.
Power to the People!
——————————
Since we don’t have a big marketing budget, our only option is a
grassroots campaign. That’s where the Internet comes in. Having watched
the rise of the populist new media—in the form of blogs—I truly
believe that we can achieve our objectives online. Of course, a
word-of-mouth campaign only works when there’s something interesting for
those mouths to talk about. We believe Brainwashing 101 is worth talking
about, but then again, it’s our film, so you might expect us to say
that!
In the end, you will decide. And if you decide that our film is an
important project, if you decide that other people should see what’s
happening on our campuses, then you can make a difference. You can make
a difference by e-mailing your friends. You can make a difference by
writing about the film on your blog. You can make a difference by
talking about the film in online message boards.
This is a remarkable opportunity for online media to flex its muscles
once again and show the traditional media—the media that’s virtually
ignored this story for decades—that there’s a new sheriff in town. We
hope you’ll help us get the story out.
———————————————————————————————————
www.brain-terminal.com
———————————————————————————————————
Posted by Brooks on Sep 9, 2004 at 12:29 PM
Wow. This really impressed me, and not just because before I read this I had no idea what Pithecanthropus was. It is very refreshing to hear this point of view (which I think is dead on) going to a private Catholic college in PA. It seems to me that too many young voters have been deceived by the very “Lamborghini libertarians” that Keillor is describing. It is very sad to think that the lies of this administration will go on to breed more of the type of people mentioned in this article. Hopefully we can stop this process from continuing on election day.
Posted by Danielle on Sep 9, 2004 at 12:31 PM
Speaking of Leftist mendacity, check out the latest news that CBS is floating forged Bush Nat Guard payback docs after the Kerry Swift Boat revelations wrecked old Lurch Kerry’s convention bounce:
http://www.powerlineblog.com
Go to The Sixty First Minute.
Apparently somebody at or near CBS ginned up docs on a modern word processor, aged them, and passed them off—thru the White House, no less—as originals from the Seventies.
Can’t win on points, so you try winning by any means, huh Leftists? I keep saying you’re liars and you keep proving it.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 12:55 PM
My, how far this conversation has drifted from anything productive and sensible. Here in the microcosm of sniping at each other we see the conflicts of the larger society. Everybody wants to have their own benefit at someone else’s expense.
And it is true that “you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, you cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer, you cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred, ...”
The Democrats and Republicans are like two vultures tearing at the body of their victim, and the only difference of opinion between them is how much each gets. The rights of the individual, for which the American Constitution was created, have been well-nigh obliterated in the public mind. Only one political party is dedicated to the individual: the Libertarians. Check them out here: http://www.lp.org
Posted by Kate Jones on Sep 9, 2004 at 12:55 PM
How can you get this covered on all network and cable news outlets? It gone right to the heart of the problem.
Posted by Pat on Sep 9, 2004 at 12:57 PM
Kim, you asked some questions. They were answered. You didn’t like the answers so you got snotty. I am no way obligated to fashion answers that you find satisfactory. You’re like every other liberal that pulls the John Kerry “bring it on” routine, and then when it is brought on, you go full tilt into whine mode.
And as I read your last post I was reminded of the psychological term “projection”.
From Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate:
Projection - The attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially the externalization of blame, guilt, responsibility as a defense against anxiety.
Now, if you want to argue any further, you’ll have to find someone else to argue with. I have other things I must do this afternoon.
Posted by Scott on Sep 9, 2004 at 12:57 PM
Its been a long time since anything good happened to this country. Even though I never voted for him, I miss Bill Clinton. GW is bad luck. Thanks Garrison for telling it like I feel.
Posted by Ken on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:27 PM
“Swift Blog Activists for Truth, Honesty and a Woman’s Right Not To Be Harassed Anywhere. “
I thought both the old-timers on this blog and the newcomers would be enlightened by a series of messages between me and inthesetimes.com that have occurred over the past six hours. As some of you will remember, someone (using my name) posted a number of very crude and criminally sexist messages on this thread last night. The following memos indicate my message to inthesetimes.com this morning regarding this problem and their very swift and appropriate response.
All of us deserve the freedom to speak our minds and hearts without fear of harassment or criminal misrepresentation of our opinions and ourselves. I hope we have heard the last from “Scott” (though probably not). However, we all owe inthesetimes.com a great deal for providing this most enlightening forum and I hope the rest of you will get a subscription too. It is the least I can do. Except, that is, to elect Kerry/Edwards and keep speech free in the USA. Run the rascals out of office and lock up their criminally vulgar friends. Peace, out.
——————-
On Sep 9, 2004, at 9:56 AM, Bernie Ellis wrote:
Date: September 9, 2004
To: In These Times Editor/Internet Security Person
From: Bernie Ellis
Subject: A Serious Problem with Internet Security on the “Lake Wobegon” Blog
First of all, I want to thank you folks for publishing the Garrison Keillor “We’re Not In Lake Wobegon Anymore” article. The article was superb and the blog that has grown up from it is pretty amazing. It now has over 30 pages of comments, and much of the dialogue has been a post-graduate course in our varying political philosophies,
and the obvious force behind those beliefs. I have been one of the very happy and frequent bloggers and have certainly enjoyed the unfiltered interchange which, though sometimes heated and
scatalogical, has nonetheless been worth every minute.
That is, until last night, when something very creepy happened. After about a day of my not posting anything, I went on-line and posted a
comment at 8:31 pm. Immediately after I posted, someone came on using my name (at 8:37 pm) and posted a very sexist, criminally aggressive and inappropriate comment aimed at one of the
female bloggers. That person then re-posted using my name at 8:56 pm, 9:04 pm, 9:17 pm and 10:14 pm. (In between those posts, I re-posted myself twice to let the blog know that someone else was using my name. And no one else has access to my home computer, so this imposter has to be using another computer to post from.)
Obviously, this is very distressing and, as far as I can tell, it is the only instance of this false posting and identity theft happening throughout the entire 30+ page thread. I am very concerned
about this obvious identify theft and I expect you folks would be concerned to know that this is possible on the blogs you establish on your web-site. (However, given the heat of the blog and the character of some of the more rabid Bush-lovers on it, nothing would surprise
me when it comes to “dirty tricks” from that bunch.)
So I am writing to request three things:
1) Please call me at home to discuss this matter as soon as possible.
2) Please check the IP, email and hometown information you have that comes in with the postings to this blog to see if you can tell who
posted those messages using my name. My guess is that they came from someone who has been posting already on the blog so hopefully you can
match up the IP, email and hometown addresses and identify the imposter….
3) If you are able to identify the identity of the false poster who is using my name, would you please jump into the thread and post a notice (from inthesetimes.com) on the thread indicating who the false poster is. I don’t want his real name to be posted, but it would be nice for the other readers to know who the nickname of the false poster is. If you find that the false posts were from an IP, email or hometown address that has not appeared among the prior posters to the
blog, you could also say that in your note.
Thanks kindly for doing this. I guess I should be flattered that someone has done this (we must be touching a lot of raw nerves among the Bushies) but it is more than a bit creepy and is very counter to the free exchange of ideas (and gleefully partisan insults) that your blog has allowed us to enjoy. Now, I’m going on-line to subscribe to your magazine—you are really a breath of fresh air.
———-
Seamus Holman (In These Times) wrote back:
I have traced this person’s ip address: 216.244.12.99 to Pasedena. I can contact the ISP and attempt to locate the home address if you
would like. They also posted posing as “Scott”. Unfortunately, there was no valid email address used. I have banned them from future postings
on our site. I will also remove the offensive postings from the site.
Best, Seamus
Associate Art Director/Webmaster
In These Times
2040 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Chicago, IL 60647
(773) 772-0100 x225
———-
Subject: Re: Web Contact—Pretty creepy security breach on the Garrison Keillor blog
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:58:59 -0500
From: Bernie Ellis <tracevu@bellsouth.net>
To: Seamus Holman <seamus@inthesetimes.com>,
Seamus,
Thanks so much for your swift response to my request. I appreciate your removing “Scott” from access to the blog. Good riddance. Given the very crude and aggressively criminal comments that he posted under my name last night, I hope you won’t mind that I go online to the blog and let the other readers know what you have let me know. I think that all of them—regardless of which side of the political chasm they are on—should know the truth about the one real sicko who has been in our midst. Maybe that will help them weigh the other comments he has foisted on us for the past week. I’ll call this post the “Swift Blog Activists for Truth, Honesty and a Woman’s Right Not To Be Harassed Anywhere. “
Thanks kindly. If you would not mind, I would also appreciate your posting a message about your attitudes towards “Scott’s” actions and the
importance of a free (and safe) place to dialogue together, regardless of how red (or blue) we get in the face doing it.
Thanks again to www.inthesetimes.com for publishing Garrison’s obviously provocative piece and the space for all of us to defend aggressively and without censorship our points of view and—through that process—our democracy. Many of us owe you a new subscription—that’s the least we can do for the public service you have provided.
Sincerely,
The Real Bernie Ellis
—————————————-
So folks, that’s that about that. While we may get more pornographic poseurs on our blog and “Scott” can certainly find another computer (and a new name) to continue to spew his bile, at least we’ve shined the light of day (and truth) on that toad-stool once. As for me, I plan to post one more time only, later today. For the long-time readers, you’ll know me when you “see” me. By now, all of you know that I can’t say anything in 100 words when 2,000 will do. For now, peace (and quiet) out.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:29 PM
That’s my take on Kimberly too, Scott. You’re far more the gentleman than I, but the point is made: If you refuse to take adult responsibility, you’re naturally going to find the Democrat/Socialist/Leftwing side of the street far more attractive.
If you want to steal wealth legally…become a Socialist Democrat.
If you want to blame others officially, become a dependent, Big Brother Leftist.
If you want to make baseless accusations, become a Democrat shill.
If you enjoy strawmen, deceit, ad hominem, and non starters, become a sound-bite Liberal…and get a job at Big Media: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html
And if all of this strikes you as healthy, normal behavior, consider yourself mentally ill.
Today’s Democrat Party, Keillor, is built on fantasies and emotions and conspiracy and stereotypes. And they, like Kim, LOVE you!
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:31 PM
It has come to our attention that a reader in these forums has pretended to be “Scott” and “Bernie Ellis”. We have recorded their IP address and restricted access to their account. However, since this user is using a dial up connection from Earthlink in Pasedena, they will regain access to our site when Earthlink gives out a new IP address to this account.
We take fraudulent postings seriously at In These Times, as they severly diminish the quality of discussions. We also prefer to maintain an open forum for discussion. Please be respectful of our other readers. We have not taken action yet for this account, but please be aware that we can track down “anonymous” postings and will report further abuse to the offending ISP.
Thanks for your understanding,
Seamus Holman
ITT Webmaster
Posted by seamus on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:33 PM
Joanne Roush wrote:
“One from the Telegraph that states that a Muslim cleric is having his residency status reevaluated by British authorities based on extremist statements to his congregation which may or may not be considered inciteful.”
My reason for linking the article was to point to the murderous mindset of a not untypical radical mullah:
===
“If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.
“As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay.”
Mr Mohammed, 44, who lives in Edmonton, north London, but is originally from Syria, also claimed that the Chechen rebels were not responsible for the deaths of more than 350 people - at least half of them children - who are so far known to have died in Beslan.
“The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians,” he said.
===
Although most of the kids were shot in the back. It’s beyond belief.
You have paraphrased the article to make it seem that “[he is] having his residency status reevaluated by British authorities based on extremist statements to his congregation which may or may not be considered inciteful.” Where does it say that?
In fact the article only says, “The father of seven came to Britain in 1985 after being deported from Saudi Arabia because of his membership of a banned group. He has since been given leave by the Home Office to remain in Britain for five years but the Government is reviewing his status.”
“Reviewing his status” is the absolute minimum comment the British government could make to the press!
His conference is to celebrate the Anniversary of 9/11. It will include Bin Laden video and a lecture dedicated to dead Al Qaeda leaders:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1300050,00.html
I agree with some of these thoughts/comments. I also disagree with some of them. The problem is that Kerry is not the answer. I am confident that what ever Bush has done wrong, Kerry will only do other things that are far worse. So, for this election we really only have one choice, and that is to ask Bush to move the country in a better direction. I for one want/will give him that opportunity.
Posted by Barry Z on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:54 PM
Well, well, well 6Pack - sounds like your friend Scotty was a very naughty boy last night. Shall we expect the same juvenile antics from you?
I join Bernie in asking all you queasy Republicans to consider that you’re known by the company you keep. Am I feeing superior to Scott? You bet. He is a miscreant and I think his words have made it clear that he is not a Christian, not a gentleman, and not even particularly bright though he has his moments of cleverness.
If you feel like rising above this level, join us. Join Bernie, Lyle, Jimboy, Kim, and best of all, Grandma. We will embrace you with open arms, and we can work together with humor and comity. Don’t get hung up on Garrison’s words or those of others spoken, out of their pain and genuine alarm for the health of our democracy. We are all worn and worried, but we still have hope and faith and we still believe that right makes might, not the other way around. Join us.
As for you 6Gun, and perhaps less so for you, Brooks - thank you for representing the true face of the Repubican Party. Your Everest-ike level of self esteem, which is a characteristic of most bullies, conceals your sociopathological personality traits from no one but yourselves. It has been a pleasure watching you strip naked in front of this large audience.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 1:58 PM
Keep your family names to yourself Joanne.
RE:
Joanne Roush just responded to the entry you subscribed to at In These
Times.
As for you ... Brooks - thank you for
representing the true face of the Repubican Party. Your
Everest-ike level of
self esteem, which is a characteristic of most bullies, conceals your
sociopathological personality traits from no one but
yourselves. It has
been a pleasure watching you strip naked in front of this
large audience.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 9, 2004 at 2:13 PM
Meaning what, exactly, Brooks? I’m used to getting more detail from you.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 2:22 PM
Don’t do it Jimboy,don’t go to the dictionary.It’s a trap.I fell for that ploy and was severely chastised for the word “sovereign”.A word supplied by the fiend that is trying to trap you.Just walk away from the trap,Jimboy.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 9, 2004 at 2:35 PM
MN - Pardon me, but the local MP stated in the article that it sounded like incitement, which I assumed was a legal term, and that he was reporting the imam to Scotand Yard. My point remains, that the British authorities are investigating and I think your level of hysteria is out of proportion to the situation which so far consists of a Muslim gassing away in much the same fashion as many of the Republicans on this blog.
But you won’t see that. Now you’ll probably construe that what I am saying is in some way meant to excuse the actions of the perpetrators of the criminal acts in Chechnya. I will emphasize most strenuously that is not the case.
Two days ago I stated that I felt it was unfortunate that this incident would inevitably be used as a political football to score cheap points. The bodies of the innocent victims of this slaughter are barely cool, the ruins still smoking most likely. Do you think they care what you or I think, or who did what to whom? Do you think they want their deaths used to score a point in a pointless political argument? I don’t. Do you think the suffering in Chechnya is ending now, or is it just beginning to intensify? How many more children should die, eh? Putin is reportedly outraged and determined to avenge this affront to his image as the great and powerful Oz of Russia. Force will be brought to bear, you can be sure of that. More innocents will die for the cause. Remind me again…what is that cause?
Have you ever asked yourself what these people are fighting for? Here in the USA we’ve been told that Islamic fanatics hate us for our freedoms. Why do they hate Russians? For their freedoms? It’s all bullshit, MN.
The British imam’s words were prophetic in terms of children and women dying in the crossfire. They always do. Here in the US we just call it collateral damage. That’s a nice, tidy term for the blood and breath of innocent children and adults. You can’t have it both ways, MN. You can’t seek violent solutions to things that scare you unless you are willing to accept all the violence. There is no picking and choosing. You’re in or you’re out. My advice to you is to pluck up your courage, and then take the nearest exit. Work for peaceful resolution to conflict. It’s what everybody in the world wants, but only a few will stand for.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 2:42 PM
Joanne/Phoebe, you mendacious, nasty old political derelict. I’m actually laughing aloud as I type this; the mental image of Phoebe and JIMSURFBOY and precious Kimberly as the Left’s frontline against all that is wrong and unfair is just killing me over here. What a team. You go, boy.
Like I said before, not an ounce of substance, just appeals to somebody—anybody!—to put out your flames. Sounds like you need a Big Brother, dear.
Brooks, what can one say? The sheer falsehood and victimizing arrogance of the Left is what passes for their discourse these days, and when outed, they just amp it up…to Keillor-like charicatures of reality. It all fits.
Phoebes self-impalement reminds me of Cal Poly’s recent utter humiliation at its own hands when it attempted to railroad its own student for daring to attempt free speech on campus. Blackest mendacity. Wall-to-wall imagery and avoidance and spin. It’s positively Martian what passes for enlightenment on the Left these days!
Phoebes, sadly, now you remind me of Kim: Intractably dishonest, supremely arrogant, and completely unreachable out there in your own private Idaho. Quite pathological in your deceit. Proud?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 2:54 PM
Brooks, I beg to differ on the importance of the separtion of Church and State and to whom it applied. Yes the term “sects” was mostly used to talk about the conflicts between the Protestant Christian sects, not even between Catholic and Protestant.
As Jefferson wrote in his autobiography about Virginias religous freedom declaration, “The restoration of the rights of conscience relieved the people from taxation for the support of a religion not theirs; for the establishment was truly of the religion of the rich, the dissenting sects being entirely composed of the less wealthy people.”
The rich sect he was referring to was the Anglican Church of Virginia which forced the people of all other sects such as Quakers and Presbyterians as well as other religions to pay the Parish tax to support the Anglican minister and the parish maintenance costs.
However, Jefferson explicitly stated that religious freedom applied “within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination” This was the context for the Constitution’s First Amendment.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffauto.htm
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Sep 9, 2004 at 3:01 PM
Joanne wrote: “Based on the de facto evidence of no major attacks on a par even with Madrid in either Germany or France, is it unreasonable to assume that both have made a successful effort to interdict such activity within their borders?”
The answer is no. Nothing can ever be deduced by the absence of an occurance. It reminds me of the people who wear aluminum foil deflector beanies and give testimony that their beanie works because since they started wearing it they haven’t had any attempts at mind control. All claims that the Department of Homeland Security is working because there have been no terrorist attacks have the same testimonial value.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Sep 9, 2004 at 3:12 PM
Gregory Wonderwheel - In other words, your answer is actually *yes*, it is unreasonable to assume that the French and Germans have been successfully interdicting terrorist activities within their borders. N’est pas?
Now, that is actually the answer I was looking for, particularly when you extended the logic to our own Department of Homeland Security. It seems to me that some would like to apply a different set of standards to a similar set of facts. I believe we are constantly being told by Tom Ridge and others that the efforts of President Bush himself have made us safer, as indicated by the frequent alarms and the lack of attacks. There seems to be general agreement among many Republicans that this is true. On the other hand, many of those same Republicans would have us question whether the French and Germans are actually on board in the fight on terrorism. Geoff (who has not so far identified himself in terms of political allegiance) has gone so far as to cite their “truculence” as evidence that they may not performing their duties in this regard as diilgently as we would like. So, I was trying to discover if he would apply the same standard to evaluating their efforts as has apparently been applied in evaluating the efforts of our current leadership.
I agree that aluminum foil hats have no proven efficacy in preventing mind control. But that’s another discussion entirely - mind control, that is.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 3:39 PM
Gregory,
A plain reading of Jay’s Federalist #2 refutes your position. “. . .Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people
descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
The concept of “one united people…professing the same religion” does not translate into the broad conception of many different religions from Jefferson’s autobiography written some 33 years after the Federalist papers were written contemporaneously with the formation of the Constitution. Jefferson’s recollection is more consistent with the secular moralism he expressed in his “Jefferson Bible” and it smacks of a post hoc ergo propter hoc - an after the fact justification, and in this case, a revisionism to boot.
I don’t have a problem with the expansive direction that religious freedom ultimately took in America. Let’s face it though, not all religions began at the same time, not all can claim the same degree of metaphysical authority, and some have a good deal more age on them than others. While different religions may subjectively satisfy different people to a similar degree, an objective comparison of religions is going to reveal many substantive differences that go to authenticity - which is why the subject is generally avoided in polite company.
It serves no reasonable purpose to tack on legitimacy to alternative religions by revising their origins in this country. Some people - in my observation mainly on the left - seem to have a real need to do this. It’s a fools errand in my view.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 9, 2004 at 3:40 PM
Brooks, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing the Federalist Papers from the Constitution. Who voted on the Federalist Papers? My understanding is that they were a series of articles produced to builld support for the Constitution, but it was the Constitution that was adopted. If one views the FP as a successful marketing campaign for the US Constitution, isn’t it fair to expect that potentially contentious issues would have been framed in a way that would appeal to the contemporary interests of their audience? This is what a good PR/marketing campaign does if it is to succeed. I’m not belittlling the FP or implying that they do not contain a great deal of enduring wisdom. But they are not the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, which was adopted by the duly elected and/or appointed representatives of the American people.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 3:53 PM
Joanne,
I find it incredibly disturbing that the likes of Scott, and 6Pack and Robert, who interestingly continue to lob the most disparaging labels, generalizations, assumptions and outright character assassinations, avoid any direct and personal statements of conviction regarding an issue, re-write their own meaning to any comments they don’t like…althewhile accusing everyone else of doing the same, seem to make up the (m)asses who support the current administration.
The right-wing-nuts on the board have already labeled me, so the everyone in the world MUST believe it to be true…or they’d be with me in conspiracy, no doubt…And we all know that no matter how a liberal brings up an issue and seeks to engage others in intelligent, solution-oriented discussion, it’s “whining”.
I have an uncle that has always been one of my favorite relatives. He is generally witty, easy-going and likeable. In his younger years, he protested the Vietnam War, drove a micro-bus, I’m sure if Birkenstocks were around them,he’d have sported a pair, and even lived for a while on a commune in Hawaii. Even as he got older, got married and started a family, he remainded pretty open-minded, read a variety of sources, maintained friends from diverse cultures, etc. During the last roughly 5 years, he became a Republican. All I can tell you is that it has not resulted in him becoming a kinder-gentler man. A man who was once fairly well-informed and welcomed dialogue and debate on a myriad of subjects, now rants (and I don’t mean that euphemistically, like “whining”) rhetoric from rabid, right-wing talk shows. He interrupts others, can’t hear anything but what he thinks is his own opinion (which is parroted directly from the pundits), refuses to elaborate on any positions he states on an issue (when questioned, you’ll never guess what he does…yep, he goes into all the usual diversions), his relativism is as far-reaching as a Fox News flash, and he lumps large segments of our society into derrogatory dismissals. He, of course, regurgitates all the rhetoric that we’ve read here about the assumed associations and lacking intelligence of anyone who is not unquestioningly endorsing Bush. I am truly not exaggerating when I say he is scarcely the same person. His need to be right, or rather “Right,” is more important than courtesy to others and respect for their views, family members’ feelings, or even friendships, and it totally precludes his ability to even hear, let alone investigate any evidence that contradicts the gospel of his GOP gurus. Closed-minded would be the understatement of the election year.
He appears to have aged tremendously since his alignment with fundamental conservativism. He is angry, bitter against entire groups of human beings because “They’re all like that, ya know”, he’s exclusive, intolerant, absolutely ignorant of anything unreported on Fox News or Right-Wing Radio and arrogant to the point where I am honestly embarrassed for him. His relationships with others have become cordial and superficial. People know they’re walking through a mine-field with him and one never knows when he may be on an incendiary rant over whomever or whatever the Republican propaganda machine has told him to be mad about on any given day.
I don’t have a problem with people having views that differ from mine…and/or anyone else’s. In fact, I am fundamentally a proponent of free-thought and personal accountability.
However, the rhetoric on the far right is deeply disturbing in its unprecendented hate-mongering. It is “Hatriotism” in its most horrific form. I’m certainly not suggesting that there aren’t such individuals under any political banner.
However, it seems abundantly evident that many, if not most of these positions are openly promoted by right-wing political pundits. How do otherwise decent people, many who have at least a vague commitment to being positive role models to their children, particularly those who also claim to place a relationship with God at the top of their ideals, buy into such an ugly, nasty, narrow-minded mentality and movement? For starters, FEAR. Fear of being (God forbid) diffent, individual, un-popular, un-patriotic (God forbid, again)or worse…DEAD. If you’re not with “US”, as we’ve been told by the rabid right, you’re with the “terrist” and YOU will be personally responsible (like we were, oops, I forgot, that’s irrelevant) for the next “terrist” attack. Fear is among the most easily manipulable states of human consciousness, and (as a marketing excecutive) I must give props to the GOP’s for their mastery of manipulation of the minds of the (m)asses.
My hope is that we’re at the far right-side swing of the pendulum, and the over-the-top fanatacism will demand a return to center as a force of natural balance. Maybe enough people have still not been lulled into a stupor by their televisions, or blinded in a fog of fear- to see what’s happening in our nation with the current band of bullies at the helm, and get out and vote, EVEN if it is for an ABB ticket.
Posted by Kim on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:06 PM
Good evening Brook,
I haven’t had a chance to re-read all of what you have enlightened me with but I am concerned with the blanket statement that all were united. <y reading shows Madison with no conventional sense of Christianity as he wrote in 1785 in his Memorial and REmonstrance against Religious Assessments:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the layity; in both superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
“What influence, in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of teh civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of teh liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perputrate it, needs them not.” Pretty clear he wasn’t into Christianity in any sense of the word.
Franklin was a Deist. As was Washington.Adams was a Unitrian. Thomas Paine stated, ” My own mind is my church.” Althought not a Deist he held Deist beliefs. Jefferson also had his own religion. It would appear the most concentrated grouping was found in FreeMasonary. Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonary. I suspefct some others may have been Christians but it would appear that most if not all of the major players in our country’s founding were not.
Given this aspect I would not be able to support a Christian beginning for America.
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:13 PM
I think Joanne may still deny her botched demand to prove the negative.
Had Spain not visibly protested a firm government and apparently capitulated in the Presidential election immediately following Madrid, was not France and the rest of the EC approaching populations 50% non-native, and had not Russia suffered as it has recently, there would still be no reason to believe Europe had a focus on substantially preventing terrorism. The evidence is lacking and so there are questions whether the French and Germans are actually on board.
Meanwhile, even judged by the constant clamor from the US Left against the Patriot Act and personal rights and Afghanistan/Iraq and Pax Americana, it’s clear the US does have real intentions to slow domestic and international terrorism.
By the evidence, it may very well be unreasonable to assume that the French and Germans have been successfully interdicting terrorist activities, if by this we mean terrorist preparations within their borders that continue to buildup for more Madrids and more Russias, which continue to occur. Until the thing detonates, it’s not death, but it is still terrorism.
This isn’t actually the answer you were looking for, but it does fit the evidence.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:16 PM
Well, Kim, about substantive posts, that’s simply not true, and the record shows it, acrimony, sarcasm and all. Seriously, earnestly; is there any remaining reason to attempt to debate you accross the table when you’ve been shown to have denied numerous generous, even overboard attempts to answer you with detail and reason?
You keep showing up looking for different answers and when they naturally don’t come, you act hurt and blame others.
Let me ask you another question. This time perhaps you’ll have the respect to answer directly:
What is it you actually want?
If you want to use just about every logical fallacy and personal victimization I think you know what you’ll get, at least from me. If you want to ignore reason, ditto. If you want to martyr yourself for no cause other than your own ego, be my guest. But don’t accuse me, or for that matter, Scott, of not stooping so low as to at least try and answer your chiding demands.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:23 PM
Brook,
On behalf of all honorably discharged veterans and all thos men and women currently serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan and in the other 130 foreign countries America has a military presence I ask for an apology for the insensitive posting earlier regarding the article and link to a website www.scrabbleface.com. I don;t know if you have ever served your country or if you intend to in the future but I find this posting beyond tasteless. If you wish to have any of us agree with what you have to say then you need to show a little respect to a group of people who have made it possible for you through their blood, tears, sweat and separation from their loved ones. You and 6gun have several times told people if they didn’t like it here to leave well sir you have not earned that right to ask anyone to leave. You have not sacrificed one breath for this Great Land. I for one resent your tone and your arrogance.
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:27 PM
Seems to be more of like minded people out there.
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
> < www.Misleader.org >
> ===============================
>
> BUSH ATTACKED NAT’L GUARD SERVICE OF OTHERS
>
> The White House is currently attacking those who raise questions about
> President Bush’s National Guard record. They say the questions about
> Bush’s
> failure to fulfill his commitment are “dirty politics.”[1] Yet a look
> at the
> record shows that it was President George H.W. Bush - and his top
> campaign
> strategist George W. Bush - who tried to smear the National Guard and
> military record of their opponents.
>
> As reported in the August 23, 1988 Los Angeles Times, then Vice
> President
> George H.W. Bush’s campaign co-chairman John Sununu went on national
> television to impugn an opponent’s dealings with the National Guard
> during
> Vietnam. Sununu specifically claimed Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) had
> improperly helped get his son into the Texas National Guard during
> Vietnam.
> Bentsen’s son served in the very same National Guard unit at the very
> same
> time as George W. Bush. The Bush campaign’s attacks came just days
> after
> Bush’s allies on Capitol Hill launched a vicious attack on Gov. Michael
> Dukakis (D-MA) for receiving a draft deferment during the Korean
> War.[2]
>
> At the time of the coordinated attack, George W. Bush was serving as a
> senior adviser to his father’s campaign.[3]
>
>
> Sources:
>
> 1. “New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ,” CBS2Chicago.com,
> 9/08/04,
> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1227278&l=54246.
> 2. “Report that Bentsen Got Son into National Guard Also Denied;
> Dukakis
> Angry about Charge of Avoiding Korean War,” Los Angeles Times, 8/23/88.
> 3. GeorgeWBush.com, 9/04,
> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1227278&l=54247.
>
>
> Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush administration distortion.
> »
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 9, 2004 at 4:31 PM
Mr. Keillor demonstrates a wonderful grasp of the English language, and an incredibly tenuous acquaintance with reality. Is it not the USA that people are selling kidneys to immigrate? One of the greatest benefits of living in the USA is that everyone has the right to leave. They also have the right to work toward change. Although I’d be the first to admit that George W. is no Ronald Reagan (who seems to evade mention here), but the ramblings of a few paranoid conspiracy-mongers fall far short of denting my love for this country.
Thanks, and I genuinely hope everyone commenting here is registered to vote and exercises that right this November.
BTW, our country WAS started by some very angry people, Mr. Keillor.
Googe
Posted by Googe on Sep 9, 2004 at 5:17 PM
[JR]
“On the other hand, many of those same Republicans would have us question whether the French and Germans are actually on board in the fight on terrorism. Geoff (who has not so far identified himself in terms of political allegiance) has gone so far as to cite their “truculence” as evidence that they may not performing their duties in this regard as diilgently as we would like. So, I was trying to discover if he would apply the same standard to evaluating their efforts as has apparently been applied in evaluating the efforts of our current leadership.”
[GR]
Perhaps in a way it’s a compliment to my endeavoring not to sound too partisan on this blog that a perfectly intelligent poster like Joanne might be under the impression that I have not yet identified my political allegiance <G>.
In fact, on Page 16 of this blog, I explained that I have been undecided for most of this cycle, but that recently I have been leaning to Kerry, even though I am still open to some persuasion one way or the other.
The reason why I am currently leaning to Kerry is bound up with my perception of a certain degree of detachment toward the War on Terror on the part of France and Germany. I simply sense that the nonappearance—so far—of WMDs in Iraq has made France and Germany—and perhaps some other needed industrialized democracies to this effort as well—too distant toward both Bush and toward the War on Terror in general.
I don’t know for sure whether or not this attitude has adversely impacted the full effectiveness of their vigilance in terms of intelligence, etc. But I remain concerned that it might in the long term.
My concern has led to a perception on my part that Bush may no longer be able to be the person who successfully changes the general European attitude on the continent.
Since I still regard a closer working relationship with Continental Europe as essential to ultimate success in the eventual phasing out of the strength of Al Qaeda, and in the depletion of their oxygen, so to speak, in the coming decades, I am now ready to look to Kerry as someone who, IMO, may, at present, be better equipped to establish a closer working relationship with all industrialized democracies of the Free World, including those of Continental Europe, than Bush would be.
MN, an articulate supporter of Bush, has suggested on this forum that I may be wrong: Kerry may be no better than Bush at changing what I view as Continental Europe’s _possibly_ truculent attitude today.
Personally, I recognize that some believe that Bush has no one but himself to blame for Europe’s current attitude, while others believe their attitude was already built into the situation and inevitable. I concede there are times when I have been toying with the former idea, but ultimately, however and why that attitude was generated is less important, IMO, than deciding on the best way to overcome it today and in the future.
Our colloquy—MN’s and mine—now stands at the following point: Whether or not Kerry may or may not be the best man to bring Continental Europe more fully around, whether or not Bush has accumulated too much negative baggage to do this effectively, putting both candidates aside, what then might be the best way to address the apparent truculence in Continental Europe today _in_ _case_ it may lead to tragic carelessness on their part in future?
As to an evaluation of our own vigilance and intelligence, one can be happy that there have been no further attacks thus far (knock wood). And perhaps, there having been no attacks in France or Germany either is also a good sign. Still, as another poster here has (essentially) observed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The other aspect of our homeland policy that brought me up short was the Supreme Court’s surprising admonishment of the Justice Dept.‘s handling of those held at Guantanamo Bay. I admit I was not expecting this at all. It made me take another look at what had seemed at first a reasonable series of precautions. If these precautions were not farsighted enough after all, in terms of their execution and conformity with the Supreme Court’s evident requirements, perhaps the general homeland policy might need a second look as well. I admit this doesn’t necessarily address the effectiveness of maintaining the general safety of America’s cities from further attack. But it does address aspects of day-to-day operations here that may not have been fully vetted by those responsible.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 9, 2004 at 5:20 PM
Lyle,
I greatly appreciate what all veterans have done to secure our freedoms. I will, however, not apologize according to your request because no reasonable person in the position of a veteran could construe this bit of scrappleface satire as a slam against veterans in general, or even in particular on account of Kerry’s veteran status. The subject of the satire is Kerry’s Senate record or lack thereof and you misconstrued the piece. Furthermore, I have never invited anyone to leave the forum. You must have me mistaken me for someone else. Finally, I noticed that you have used your veteran status to put other parties down in this forum. I find that to be a curious coincidence.
Sincerely,
Brooks
RE:
Brook,
On behalf of all honorably discharged veterans and all thos men and women
currently serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan and in the other 130 foreign countries America has a
military presence I ask for an apology for the insensitive posting earlier
regarding the article and link to a website www.scrabbleface.com. I don;t
know if you have ever served your country or if you intend to in the future
but I find this posting beyond tasteless. If you wish to have any of us
agree with what you have to say then you need to show a little respect to a
group of people who have made it possible for you through their blood,
tears, sweat and separation from their loved ones. You and 6gun have several
times told people if they didn’t like it here to leave well sir you have
not earned that right to ask anyone to leave. You have not sacrificed one
breath for this Great Land. I for one resent your tone and your arrogance.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 9, 2004 at 5:20 PM
Kim, I don’t want to speak for you, but I can’t help but respond briefly to ole Shooting Blanks.
6Gun, I think most (if not all) people writing and reading this thread would appreciate less direct attacks on our opponents. I think it’s eminently fair game to say whatever we want about the policies, practices and behaviors of the candidates we oppose; but continually attacking other posters we disagree with on this thread gets us absolutely nowhere. I am no choir-boy myself on this score, though I have noticed that you “real men” to seem to prefer to call the women disparaging names more than you do me, Lyle, Ed, Michael, Geoff and other men who have responded.
I also notice that you have no women on your side.
Do you let conservative women speak at all, or is that just the price they pay for hanging with conservative men?
As for me, I was taught early on not to hit girls. And one of the first girls I tussled with in grade school taught me that there are several reasons not to do that—including that they can hit back (hard). I think the women posters on this thread have been cogent and persuasive in their arguments, and have tried harder than some of the men (myself included) to state their points without attacking other posters personally. Why—after dominating this thread for so many days now—can’t you show any learning curve at all on this score? Even I tried to “just get along” for a whole day. Why can’t you?
I was also taught to tell the truth, and that means not hiding behind someone else’s identity when I wanted to “talk dirty”. You guys were evidently taught differently, as displayed by your own behavior toward women and Scott’s completely over-the-top behavior last night, which has now been exposed by inthesetimes.com for all to see. Since you’re still defending him, do you condone that behavior? Do you have no substance to your moral foundations, no shame, no judgement regarding the people you choose to associate with—on this thread or off it?
We have been given far too many opportunities to ask that question to you repeatedly to the moral Republicans and Independents who are participating in this thread and reading it without comment. No one seems to want to join the “gang of four” very often (you, Brooks, Scott and Robert). And if inthesetimes was indeed successful in blocking Scott from any further posts (I sure hope so), you’re down to three. So let me put out an appeal for you.
If there are other readers of this thread who agree with your tone, your argumentative style, your non-stop haranguing of the rest of us—let him or her speak now or keep holding their peace. While there certainly may be some who can agree with some of your positions on issues, I doubt that there are very many who would care to align themselves with your total lack of manners.
Of course, you could always visit Scott out in Pasadena, and the two of you could walk hand-in-hand down the street with your Cheney-approved signs overhead that read “The world is going to end on November 3 unless you vote for Bush-Rove/Cheney. Follow us to freedom and salvation in a terrorless world.” Report back, won’t you, on how long the train of followers is.
My daddy always said that I would be judged by the company I keep. You’re still running with Scott—if I were a woman or a man with any breeding at all, that’s just about all I would need to know about you to say, when you approached me on the Pasadena streets with your harangue: “Here’s 50 cents. Call someone who cares.”
This isn’t my last post, but I’m working up to it. Please tell Scott (or should I call him “Bizarro Bernie”) “hi” for me, won’t you. And tell him that inthesetimes.com would be happy to tell us all where he lives.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 9, 2004 at 5:43 PM
This article inspired me to write up a quiz.
“Our dearest friends, Garrison Keillor and Ann Coulter, occasionally refer to their political opponents by harsh names. Can you guess which one of them used which names to refer to one or more of their ideological enemies?”
Posted by Dan Fabulich on Sep 9, 2004 at 5:45 PM
Bush/Cheney; hitting girls; flying solo in a leftwing forum; running with a pervert. See, Bernie, now you’ve gone and faced me with a dilemma.
Either I respond in kind to your tempest in Keillor’s teapot, escalating the stereotype you love to erect so you have something to dislike all over again, or, I ignore this silly partisan gender baiting and appealing to those you hope get your back. I’m capable of the former and happy with the latter.
How about ten autobiographical paragraphs, many based on a partisan strawman? Seen it here before. [wink]
Or I take your implied advice and ignore this place. That would be class. Your call.
Have the girls vote, Bernie. I have much better things to do and I really, sincerely, don’t want to be a bore where minds are so set.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:14 PM
All well and good, what happened to the NY Times?
What about the Washington Post? The papers in Georgia,forexample? No disrespect here to a great mindshowninthese pages, but we’renot in the front row here, print this thing for many to read. May mercy be shown to us all.
Posted by Peter Buttolph on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:35 PM
I vote for the classy option. Only because, as you’ve made so abundantly clear, the boredom is mutual.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:36 PM
Brooks,
I do apologize for mixing you up with someone else and including you in a posting that should have been in two parts. You are blameless as to telling people to leave the country not the forum. I should have proof read my posting to check for errors.
I have since double checked every posting (over 900) because of this unfortunate accusation. I do stand by what I said in the first part and if you will allow me to explain why perhaps you may see my point.
(2004-09-09)—On a day when new allegations surfaced about George W.
Bush’s National Guard service in 1972, Democrat presidential candidate John
Forbes Kerry officially received his honorable discharge from the U.S.
Senate.
This is the lead to the satire you posted. The reference here is to the allegations that have been made regarding President Bush’s service and subsequent honorable discharge from the military. In light of all the outright lies that have been posted in reference to the “swifties” claims against Kerry regarding the award of any or all service awards. Because the article begins with a new revelation and it regards the President who may be the one in hot water over what is alleged we now are to ignore any discussion on that point and switch immediately by a parody of his opponent and in fact more is made of this in reference to a discharge than of his record or non-record. This casts a cloud on all veterans as to whether in fact their discharges or honorable or were purchased or just plain fabricated. In light of the over 1,000 killed in Iraq alone and the many thousands more wounded and the conflict still going on makes any parody of service to this country by its veterans insensitive.
I do feel I am a reasonable man and if you do not then that is your call. Again I do humbly apologize for including you where you did not belong.
I do value what you have posted in reference to the Constitution and will re-educate myself to see if I am able to come to the same conclusions as soon as I have time.
Sincerely,
Lyle
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 9, 2004 at 6:50 PM
Joanne Roush wrote:
“One from a blog that offers interpretation and analysis, not news in the sense of reportage of fact. The article you referenced implies a vast Muslim conspiracy has been in place since 1922 to take over the USA. So far they don’t seem to have accomplished a great deal in that arena. Looks like the Crusaders are on top of that effort.”
Actually, Daniel Pipes is a newsmaker and also a journalist with impeccable credentials. It’s better to reference him directly. The particular page I cited contained many ‘facts’ including excerpts of commments by various prominent Islamists in this country. There is more to journalism than the major newspapers and broadcast media.
Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, and a member of the presidentially-appointed board of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He likely will not survive in the latter position if Sen. Kerry is elected, as someone more sensitive (i.e. non-confrontational) would no doubt be appointed.
It’s well worth the time to look around his website:
http://www.danielpipes.org/
Don’t think that he is anti-Muslim. He’s not, in fact he respects and supports moderate Muslims. He is warning us of the dangers of radical jihadi Islamists and their mission.
Some excerpts:
“Calling Islamism the Enemy” (Recent statements from key leaders)
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/300
“Let Iraqis Take Responsibility for Iraq”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/173
“Death to France”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/159
“Faces of Islam”
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/441
Bernie Ellis,
Good going. But rather than shining the light of day on that toadstool, I suggest you have beamed moonlight on the cat turd.
Geoff,
===
[JR]
“<SNIP> What is so fascinating to me is the British experience. I am intrigued by the fact that despite an enormous Muslim population, they also have not experienced a major terrorist event. They certainly can’t be accused of being other than our most vigorous supporter in Iraq.
[GR]
What is your take on that? “
===
[MN]
I would offer Pipes’ view, based on /his/ sources:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/307
===
[GR]
Perhaps, it was vigilant intelligence in Britain’s case as well.
There is also, I gather, a certain impatience and vigilance within the Muslim communities as well. I recall, vividly, that, shortly after 9/11, a British imam exploded with fury to a British reporter:
“I wasn’t born yesterday; neither were most of the members of the congregation here. All of us smelled something was off when two or three interlopers started attending here and bothering my parishioners with all sorts of nonsense, talking violence and seemingly trying to win converts. No one listened to them, being quite exasperated with them instead. I finally had to call Scotland Yard.
“I said, ‘Look, you’ve got to remove these guys. They’re giving us the creeps, and no one here wants them or likes them. I want you to send some people over and simply escort these guys out of here. They’re not welcome.’
“No one came from Scotland Yard. So we’ve had to simply ignore these creeps as best we could, getting more frustrated and exasperated with Scotland Yard by the week. Can’t you understand we’re British citizens too? We’re entitled to protection just like anyone else. Why couldn’t they send someone to flush out these creeps? It’s an outrage! We were simply ignored!”
Interesting story, isn’t it? It’s occurred to me that it’s possible that something else was Britain’s friend here. Not just the readiness of the Muslim comunities to police themselves. It may also have been a higher level of education that protects them from paying serious attention to the kind of rot Al Qaeda and fellow travelers spout.
===
[MN]
That’s certainly putting it in the best possible light. However, there is an alternate view.
Pipes almost garnered the honor to be winner of the Islamic Human Rights Commission “Most Islamophobic media personality”.
However, first place was siezed by Polly Toynbee:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1285291,00.html
I hope everyone will take the time to follow that link. There is a fundamental clash between pacifism and tolerance arising which Ms. Toynbee discusses at length.
MN - thanks for the links back to Daniel Pipes. I have skimmed two articles and added him to my Bookmarks for regular review.
I’m really encouraged to see posts today that acknowledge the fact that most Muslims are not supportive of terrorism. NPR had an interview today with a Muslim cleric in VA who made a well supported case that the general population in this country has exhibited very little overall hostility to members of the Muslim faith while government authorities have been far more suspicious and hostile than they ever imagined. A number of callers verified this.
I hate to sound cynical, but to me this is simply another example of institutional bungling, squandering the good will of the very people we most need to bring to our side to combat a real threat to our safety.
Force is not going to be the main solution to this problem - ever. We should have learned that in past conflicts, and certainly many knowledgable people were sounding (muted) alarms before the invasion of Iraq. We must constructively engage with the moderates on all sides and get the extremists, on all sides, isolated from one another. There is no effective military solution to this problem, though military action may be a component of a solution in some specific cases, such as apprehension of a target.
I’m rambling - it’s late. Thanks again for the links. Do you read Juan Cole? You might like him for another viewpoint on these matters.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:06 PM
I was pleased to read Mr. Keillor’s article. He was able to voice, in a spectacular way, what many Americans believe.
Who could believe that a man who went AWOL from the National Guard would have the audacity to denigrate a Vietnam War hero? A lot of idiots actually believed it!
Bush has betrayed the nation by attacking a country that was not a threat to us, instead of concentrating on the terrorist threat to America.
His actions have created many more terrorists than have been killed.
Bush has betrayed the nation by reversing bipartisanship support for clean air, clean water, and other environmental issues.
Bush has betrayed the nation by allowing corporations to write the laws by which they are to be regulated, with no input from anyone else.
He has betrayed the nation by giving massive tax cuts to the richest Americans, and then cutting money for public education and other programs because the tax cuts don’t leave enough money for them.
Bush has betrayed the nation by passing a medicare drug plan to give billions to the drug industry and raising the drug costs
to most senior citizens.
The great hope for this country rests in electing
some who will fight for the values of this country, who will fight for the average American to get his fair piece of the economic pie. He will recognize the importance of the separation of church and state for the benefit of both institutions,will keep the government out of the bedroom, and allow stem cell research.Vote Kerry!
Posted by Barry on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:31 PM
It’s exactly what I’ve been thinking and didn’t know how to say it and you have done it so well. I wish everyone would read and heed!
Posted by Beryl on Sep 9, 2004 at 8:37 PM
Bill Clinton, undoubtedly the wittiest and most intelligent President since Abraham Lincoln, said it best: “When the American people take the time to think, they elect a Democrat. When they get tired of thinking, they elect a Republican.”
The last time this country held an election, the people chose a Democrat, so they must have been thinking, right? The irony, however, is that at least this time, “thinking” just didn’t count for much. Certainly not in the face of brute force and gang mentality.
Yes, dear thinking Americans, dear thoughtful, rational, logical Ladies and Gentlemen… it really did happen, and we all just sat back and watched. Our first televised national political coup. Illegal, immoral, and seemingly impossible. How could it ever happen here?
Perhaps it was so “unthinkable” that it’s easier to believe it didn’t really happen. Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, places like that perhaps, and, oh yes, Germany once upon a time; but not here in America. We have “checks and balances” to prevent things like that.
A “for real” coup d’état? You know, the sudden overthrow of a government, usually by a small group of people who either still are or who were previously in positions of power and authority? No way.
Really? Ask the folks in Florida whose neighborhoods were cordoned off with concrete barriers by local law enforcement so they couldn’t drive to the polls. Did it seem like America then? The United States of America?
Hey, remember when that ignorant old peanut farmer Jimmy Carter took a few “observers” with him to those poor, down-trodden “third world” countries to make sure everybody played by the rules so that the candidates the people elected were the ones who actually took office, despite the threats of resident thugs?
What do you think the American people would have thought if Jimmy had looked the other way when the guy who ended up in office got there because the judges that his dad and his dad’s boss had appointed decreed that a province run by the guy’s own brother had to give its votes to him, despite the fact that the majority of the people there voted for the other guy?
Wouldn’t it have been a no-brainer that the “election” was unfair? You would think so, wouldn’t you? Well, guess what. It doesn’t matter what you think. Think, or don’t. It only matters what you do. Remember?
Does “reality” ring a bell? It’s like that show they have on TV a lot now. It’s not really reality, you know, it’s just pretend. Really. Even though it seems real, you have to keep in mind that real people don’t have cameras and microphones following them around in their real lives.
You are real. George W. Bush is real. Condoleezza (I’m not making this up) Rice is real. Do something. Please.
Posted by No One Special on Sep 10, 2004 at 2:36 AM
Georgie Porgie our president high
His WMD was just a lie.
Georgie Porgie said bye bye
And sent us to Iraq to die.
Georgie Porgie then did cry
I got him, Daddy, didn’t I!
Posted by Charlie on Sep 10, 2004 at 4:32 AM
I couldn’t agree with you more. My husband and I have said more than once, if we have four more years of this administration, then it may just be time to move our family to New Zealand.
Posted by Nancy Spangenthal on Sep 10, 2004 at 5:34 AM
Never heard of Garrison Keillor, but man is he angry. Imagine him in a dialogue with Bush. Napalm would be gentler on Bush.
I am not American, but I hope you will take a moment to read the rest of what I wanted to say.
What really strikes me the most about all these posts is that you all speak of the republicans as if they are the dim witted ones. The same can be said about Michael Moore and his attack on them (Moore is a good person. He Loves his country and the people in it).
Its really a contradiction though is it not. You are all the same, shit WE are all the same. Its sad to see the “Its us or them”, although when it comes to the crunch I imagine that you will all stick together. This is the important part and people should keep that in mind at all times.
What America and the rest of the world needs is some alien force to come and whip our asses. That will be sure to get every sorry mother fucker fanatic to co-operate with is earth enemy against the evil force. Just imagine Islamic folk fighting next to Republicans. Jews next to Hindus or better still the KKK being helped out by a black brother. That would be a sight and a beautiful one at that.
You all know that Bush has got to go. You are not only doing this for yourselves, but for all of us.
Thank you!
Posted by No American on Sep 10, 2004 at 5:47 AM
I’m not allowed by the inmates In These Times to address thoughts directly to them—too traumatic—but I hope they can handle the occasional news article.
Looks like the interns at the Bush-hating Kerry Kamp have produced forged documents about their nemesis, the Etch-A-Sketch Prez.
Silly Lying Kerry Kamp Villians. When will they, and the Left, learn that cheaters never prosper:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bombshell-spectator-post.html
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 10, 2004 at 5:49 AM
Thank you, Mr. Keillor, for stating your opinion about the sad shape in which we find our country. One of the comments about your article stated that you should keep out of politics, and that has always been said to those whose views are in contrast to someone who doesn’t have enough depth to their convictions to have them challenged (or is not knowledgeable enough to defend their ideas). Generally, I would say that it is polite to avoid talking politics, but it is hard not to express your opinion these days, especially if you feel strongly about the way the USA has been run over these past four years. I am not shocked by anything that comes out of the Bush Admin., but I find it appalling that the American people are allowing such intolerance.
Wake up, USA!!!! and listen, NO, I AM NOT AFRAID EVERY MINUTE THAT SOME TERRORIST WILL TAKE MY LIFE. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO HATE US. -(an argument the right-wingers love to use to absolve themselves from thought, along with tearing open the wound of 9/11 at every opportunity) There is no reason in any time to elect leaders whose strength is making snap decisions with as little information as possible, and holding to those like a dog with a bone. This is not a virtue. In fact, I thought the word for that was stupid.
It is impossible to hold this Administration accountable without holding the whole lot of them accountable. George W. Bush is the perfect figure head for this group, and they load and fire him as they need to.
Hey, the gloves are coming off, and the sissies are ready to defend their country!
Count me in.
Posted by Gregory R. Szczeszek, Jr. on Sep 10, 2004 at 6:23 AM
It would appear that Bush Administration policy is having the desired effect on protecting America from terrorism.
Despite those who would see terrorism by small, “repressed” countries and factions as the moral equivalent of a rape being the ugly man’s courtship, i.e., that one does what one has to to succeed, damning the moral implications and consequences, right-thinking Americans know terrorism must be confronted.
Bush Administration Policies protect America. For this reason, and for the reason that the President’s opponent simply cannot define a functional policy—no more in national security than in any domestic program—the President will likely be re-elected by a substantial margin.
Preemption works: http://nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200409101000.asp
Posted by Horace English on Sep 10, 2004 at 6:38 AM
Horace English has kindly provided us with a link and a conclusion, presumably based on the linked article. I followed the link and IMHO, the conclusion that “preemption works” is not supported by the content. In fact, while the author contains one brief mention of the US military response to terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bulk of his writing focuses on the inherent weaknesses in the jihadi movement and shows that its actions only serve to drive moderate Arabs and Muslims away.
Here are the author’s conclusions, in his own words:
“Islam’s “vanguard,” as Zawahiri called it, has an opportunity to redefine the message and turn away from the extremists. America will win the war against extremism because America’s values are righteous, and because God, whatever you conceive Him to be, is at our side. But Islam will surely lose its credibility as a great religion if its benefactors don’t stand now and drive the final nail into the coffin of the terrorists who have hijacked a noble faith.
The terrorists have turned on themselves because they have no morality and no code. Let’s now finish the job and rise up against them en masse with ideas that reflect human values, not just Islamic values: to mobilize the Muslim masses against their own extremist creed for the good of humanity. To do otherwise is to show the ultimate disrespect for our fallen heroes, both here in America and now in the fields of Beslan, where the innocence of our children was lost as well.”
Note that his call to arms involves ideas, not military force. That is not to say that military response is never under any circumstances necessary. I think of it as pragmatic pacifism, and I think that’s pretty much what most people in this country endorse. It’s an approach that seeks other ways to resolve conflicts, and recognizes that violent preemption will only provide temporary ‘relief’ if any, and that any relief thus obtained will by its nature breed more hatred, bitterness, resentment and violence. This is also called common sense in some circles.
The author also takes leaders in the American Muslim community to task for failing to speak out for moderation. I believe they have done this in many instances, on a local community basis, but have often been put on the defensive by the belligerent tone of our official doctrine of preemption, which seems to have extended itself from the military/diplomatic realm into domestic law enforcement and public policy via the policies of the Justice Department.
If you want to find incoherence and lack of direction in national security policy, don’t go to John Kerry’s web site. Just take a look at the past three years of the Bush administration. Oh, heck, go on back to his first week in the White House, with Condi and the rest of them throwing a blankiet over the most competent intelligence experts and focusing on Cold War issues.
This election is a referendum on the lack of leadership and integrity of the current administration. Don’t fall for their tango around the facts. Even the conservative press is filled with articles that openly or by implication offer stern criticism of Bush’s policies and actions, and rightly so. Sugar coating it with a nod to our fallen heroes, who deserve more than that, does not alter the fact that we’ve made a mess of things and it’s time to straighten up.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:15 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:26 AM
I don’t know 6gun,Bush cheated and won the last election,and he has been cheating american ever since and has amassed a tidy little fortune.Of course that’s about to come to a screeching ass halt.Have a good day and whining doesn’t become you.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:29 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:30 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:33 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:35 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:38 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:43 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:45 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:47 AM
It’s always costly for those who depend on the good will of the public for their livings and futures to speak out on politics. That you have done so is a much appreciated contribution to the work of getting our Nation back onto its once reasonable course.
We haven’t had so articulate a spokesman in the cause of common sense since Thomas Paine. Thank you for your effort and your eloquence.
Harry Gehlert
Posted by Harry Gehlert on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:53 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:55 AM
THANK YOU GARRISON! This is the best summary I’ve seen of what I think is the sad situation in this country today. Thank you for deciding you need to speak out. You have a chance of convincing the good, strong, hard-working people who are being led by fear down a bad, self-destructive path.
Three cheers for your words and your courage.
Posted by Joan on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:00 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:04 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:08 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:13 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:15 AM
Ok,Gary we get the message,but this is also a place to have a costructive dialogue.Not just a place to flood with a political campaign. I already am going to vote for Kerry,not because he is the best man,but because he is not George Bush.So enough already Gary.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:18 AM
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE **************************************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Posted by Gary Marsh on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:27 AM
Get informed!!!
More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.
The oppo researcher claimed the source was “a retired military officer.” According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.
“More than a couple people heard about the papers,” says the DNC staffer. “I’ve heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity.”
The concerns arose from the sourcing. “It wasn’t clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn’t confirm from what file, from what original source they came from.”
A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.
“The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush’s file that had Killian calling Bush ‘an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.’ And someone who Killian said ‘performed in an outstanding manner.’ Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.”
The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. “This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn’t show it,” says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.
Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign.
Posted by Hindrocket at 07:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (4)
Democrats Seek to Profit from 60 Minutes Hoax
The Democrats are now busily distancing themselves from the 60 Minutes hoax, denying that they had anything to do with the forged documents. But at 10:29 last night, just as the 60 Minutes hoax was conclusively unravelling, the Democratic National Committee sent out an email that said:
Back in February, President Bush sat down in the Oval Office for an interview with Tim Russert and spoke about his service in the National Guard. Bush told us, “I put in my time, proudly so.” He said, “And I’m telling you, I did my duty.”
But now we know that Bush dishonored the Oval Office by lying to the American people.
New military documents show that Bush disobeyed a direct order from his commander to take a flight physical and “failed to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards”—and was grounded as a result.
New evidence supports claims that Bush missed months of service and that he never showed up for service with the Alabama National Guard.
New evidence shows that Bush received special treatment. His supervisor wrote that he felt pressured from above to “sugar coat” Bush’s records.
And Ben Barnes, former Lt. Governor and State House Speaker of Texas, has come forward to say that he pulled strings to get Bush a coveted spot in the Guard, which directly contradicts Bush’s claim that he received no special treatment.
The Democratic Party’s email concludes with a list of “questions” for President Bush, based on the forged CBS documents and the claims of Ben Barnes. The party asks Democrats to write letters to their local newspapers, publicizing the “facts” contained in the forged 60 Minutes documents.
CBS says that it has launched an investigation into the Killian document hoax. (Of course, they haven’t admitted yet that the documents were forged, but that will come soon.) The first question will be, where did the documents come from? So far, CBS has refused to say who the source was. But we know now that it wasn’t a member of Jerry Killian’s family. So who else would have had, for the last thirty-two years, a handful of typed memos that supposedly were put in Killian’s “personal file”?
Anyone want to bet that when the source is finally revealed, it will be a Democrat? And what do you think the odds are that 60 Minutes can keep the results of its “investigation” quiet until November?
Posted by Hindrocket at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (3)
Hurricane Dan
In his New York Post column this morning John Podhoretz brilliantly summarizes yesterday’s investigation into the 60 Minutes memos: “CBS’s big blunder?”
HINDROCKET adds: See also Thomas Lipscomb’s piece in the Chicago Sun-Times. Both Podhoretz and Lipscomb credit Power Line and our readers for our part in exposing the 60 Minutes hoax.
Posted by The Big Trunk at 01:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (12)
CBS overboard
Posted by mary on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:27 AM
Thank you mary.
If this information about a hoax proves to be true.It is a sad commentary on how far people are willing to go to win an election.I am against Bush,but there is plenty of legitimate information to use against George to win the election. Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:39 AM
Oh for crying out loud. Let’s see, more than six weeks ago an “oppo researcher” received these documents. Who is the researcher? You may be aware that the very finest oppo researchers are drawn from the ranks of the “oppo.” Duh.
Then they were handed around the DNC and, supposedly, the Kerry campaign honchos. Then, dopes that they are, they handed them over to CBS. Now that was really insane, since CBS has clearly shown its incompetence in making sensible decisions about such matters in the past. They combine a craven lust for the scoop with timidity in the face of the usual right wing onslaught produced by anything short of adulation of Republican figureheads. They never would have had the balls to run the Abu Ghraib story if Seymour Hersch hadn’t done all the heavy lifting for them. Idiots.
But the Democrats, in their usual bumbling fashion when it comes to fighting for their life in a brutal political campaign, hands the documents to CBS, who then finds some evidently less than competent ‘experts’ to vet them for authenticity. Hello? Do we hear or see anything here that indicates that the DNC or the Kerry campaign did anything that was more than foolish?
There is not one iota of evidence of culpability on the part of any member of the DNC, the campaign, or any other Democrat. That may indeed emerge, but frankly this is much more Karl Rove’s style than anything else. Too bad the Dems seem to have lost the latest game of rope-a-dope. The real shame is that the world will suffer for it if it works its magic.
This is not a game. There are real victims of this juvenile madness that has infected our political process. Demand an end to it and a focus on the real issues of this election. Write to the candidates and their campaigns and demand that they stop playing games with our lives.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 10, 2004 at 8:52 AM
One more thing. I want to point out that the legal staff of Viacom, which owns CBS, is the same team that refused to run the MoveOn ads during the Superbowl because they “don’t do political ads”, then turned around and approved the Swift Boat ads on my local CBS affiliate station. I have correspondence with the local station to prove this. CBS is also the network that caved in to the right and refused to air a made for TV movie about Ronald Reagan’s presidency after being intimidated by an astroturf campaign from the right before the movie aired. Now I don’t care one way or another about a crappy TV movie that is just another vehicle to sell us more junk at Walmart, but CBS is neither the pinnacle of integrity nor consistency in their position on airing anything of a political nature. They are embedded in the Republican Party, especially Dan Blather. Whichever side you favor to win, if you are a person of any integrity whatsoever, you will try to focus the public debate on real policy issues. Stop the madness!!!
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 10, 2004 at 9:01 AM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
You forgot Windsurfing Wafflers
Joanne,
Thanks for your posts as well. I have been aware of the PNAC agenda for some time. I am a voracious reader of indy news sources for many years, long before the tradgedy of 9/11. Because of that, it is horrifically evident to me that the issues, agendas and questions examined by the few, rare, investigative journalists who have been labeled everything from wackos to “terrist”, have gradually, despite every effort of this administration, begun to emerge as relevant dialogue in our national discourse. It has been amazing to me how effective this administration has been in positioning the process of even asking questions as un-American, and how pliable the minds of the masses have been in accepting that ironically UN-AMERICAN propaganda. It is totally American to ask questions and to require answers and accountability from our elected officials. But unbelievably, that concept has been easily erased from the minds of the bleating masses. And unfortunately, I don’t think that many people even know what questions they’d ask, if they ever decided to ask any.
I’m still waiting for a single Bush supporter to explain to me how/why those in charge of our country should not be held accountable to at least answer questions (under oath) about the glaring inconsistencies and anomolies that ALLOWED the tragedy of 9/11. This, and the agenda of PNAC, which Scott would have me believe is just any ole think-tank, IMO, should be among the main talking points of every discussion about who we will elect to determine the direction of our nation in November.
I’m not at all encouraged by what has been offered up as an alternative to “Business of Politricks as Usual” by Kerry/Edwards. I am, as I’ve said, gravely concerned not only with the direction of our country, but with the massive ignorance and apathy of “We the People”. I believe that you are among the few who are doing your best to be informed, and actively involved in supporting what you believe to be the best option. Please don’t take my comments personally, even tho I don’t share your enthusiasm or optimism about JK’s agenda for affecting change in the areas I believe are in dire need of change. One of those areas, IMO is our entire electoral process in which we have 2 candidates, economically beholden to the same bosses. I believe we should ask those very uncomfortable, and potentially embarrassing questions about the “strings” attached to major business/industry contributions to our leaders. Let’s get it out there on the table, at the Presidential debates, and talk about it candidly BEFORE the elections! That’s another debate I won’t go into now, but one that ultimately must become a priority for “We the People”. As I said in my original post on this board, its very frightening that a nation of people, the majority of whom have never left the country (or maybe even their own state), who consider themselves “informed” if they watch the corporate news or read the local paper, who are products of an anemic education system that is more and more a model of indoctrination and recitation than critical thinking, who haven’t read anything more in-depth than the National Enquirer or watched anything more stimulating than the reality show of the day, who consume and create waste on a collosally disproportionate level on the planet, and who can’t even find the next country we’ll pre-emptively attack on a map, are “electing” leaders who are making decisions that not only affect them and their families in ways that they scarcely understand, but on people all around the world. I’m sure at this point some Rhodes Scholar will suggest that if I don’t like it, that I just leave, or that I must be a “whining” liberal, et al. But folks, I’m talking about US, MY people, Myself- before I began waking up, smelling the coffee, asking the un-comfortable, and more importantly asking what I could do to make a difference. I respect anyone who offers an opinion that they hold based in responsible research and a point of view that is beyond a propaganda-based-bias- AND takes committed action on their convictions. Unless I’ve missed the Memo that the current administration has succeeded in re-defining that, I believe that’s what it means, fundamentally, to be an American.
6Gun:
“It’s a documented fact that Bill Clinton mentioned Christ MORE often than the hated fundamentalist from Texas.”
Michael:
“Just shows that the Constitution works the way it is supposed to. Nothing there to prevent the President from personal religious expression. Now show me some examples of how Liberal Bill and the Wings prevented you from your own personal religious expression.”
You again take me out of context, Mike, and doing so, take the point of the argument from the personal to the legal. Not appropriate.
My point is that private, non-governmental leftists frequently lampoon Bush for his sordid Christian values and overrunning government with white-hooded male Baptist villianry. Check out nearly any of Phoebe’s many shrieking trainwrecks to see what I refer to.
There is no Constitutional issue in private free speech here, nor has The Adolescent President of ‘92-‘98 oppressed my expression of say, his decrepit character in any way. That’s not the point.
The point is personally accountable consistency, something the private Left, including our gracious host, regularly lacks.
Response to 6Gun”
I asked:
“For some people their choice is no religion. Are they therefore somehow less citizens than the Christian founders?
6Gun replied:
“Yes, they are less citizens, at least in my opinion.”
And there is the difference.
A wise person once told me, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. You’ll just waste your time and annoy the pig.” My apologies to the pig. Any furtherance of this discourse would be wasting our time and annoying each other.
I love Garrison but his take on reality is a little one sided. I wish I had his way with worda so I will just say when he disects the left side as honestly as the right I will regain a lot of respect for him. The evil of two lesser will be elected in November. Kerry or Bush ,in my opinion there will be no real differance in the long run.
“I’m still waiting for a single Bush supporter to explain to me how/why those in charge of our country should not be held accountable to at least answer questions (under oath) about the glaring inconsistencies and anomolies that ALLOWED the tragedy of 9/11.”
Untrue, Kim. You just don’t like the answers you got. You’ve had both practical and legal answers you haven’t bothered to try and refute.
Agenda?
Mike, in defense of your own mindset, do you deny me the right to my own?
<Kim, to answer your first question, if a charge of crime is levelled at the Bush Administration, they would be made to testify, provided that Executive priviledge and national security were not impaired.
Is that an acceptable answer?
6Gun-Again, I ask YOU, (this is so hilariously typical of my conversation with EVERY Bush supporter I’ve ever asked this question) Do YOU think our leaders should be required to answer any/all questions (under oath) regarding the fulfillment of the duties for which we have hired them to fulfill…in regards to the events of 9/11 (or any event which occurs on their watch, for that matter)? And if not, WHY NOT?
FYI, there are lawsuits in process, so “The Jury” so-to-speak, is still out.
Still, again I ask YOU, is it important for YOU that your leaders would answer those questions, and if not, WHY NOT?
Well, I guess President Rove must be on this thread personally tonight. Because the last post attributed to me above (posted at 8:37 pm) was decidedly not written by me. (Sorry about the language in that post, Anna, but these momma’s boys were all weaned a bit early.) The one right above it (at 8:31 pm) was one that I actually wrote.
Jeez, we’re really entering the Twilight Zone on this thread now, folks. These right-wingers are getting scarier by the minute, but I can smell them beginning to melt from here. (Can’t tell yet if it’s the smell of napalm or crude oil.) My apologies also to the thread (on behalf of their parents and other kin) that they never learned how to behave in polite company.
Please be polite enough (whoever this creep is) not to use my name when you work out your own fantasies on this thread and/or man enough to say what you mean using your own name (or whatever nickname you want to hide behind this time).
Quite a world we live in these days, folks. For those moral Republicans and Independents on this thread, make your own judgement as to who you’d like to be hanging with for the next four years. I’m just glad there’s so many of us here working together to change things.
Send the perverts back to their prep schools—elect Kerry/Edwards.
Kim, three things: Paragraph breaks, less shouting, and pay attention. Remember, the Trvth isn’t nearly as obvious to me as it is to you (and Paula, was it?)
I’m not a Bush supporter, at least not in the sense I think you mean.
Government should be far more accountable than it usually is.
There’s no evidence the President committed any crimes re: 9/11.
Government has security concerns that override questionable demands of the Executive by tiny portions of the country.
Last time, okay?
Sure, Bernie. It was a Vast Conspiracy. You bet.
Actually, whoever is using my name (must be too ashamed to use his own) is a pretty fast poster. So the posts at 8:37, 8:56, 9:04 and any that appear (probably before and) after this one are from some seriously sad soul. I’ll check with inthesetimes.com tomorrow to see what might be done to screen out this new class of Bush-supporters that we’ve been free from until now. Good night and my prayers go out to some anonymous someone who is definitely powerless over something, to the extent that his life is really unmanageable. I hope he can find a Higher Power soon.
Get your own life, creep.
Alright, 6Gun, you have demonstrated uncanny ability to tap dance all around simply answering the question:
“Do YOU personally think that the Prez. and other leaders charged by the families should answer their questions, under oath”?
Its very simple. If your answer is “NO”, the follow up question is “Why NOT?”
6Gun, I’ve gotta tell ya, Man. This is one of the key issues that people have with those who support this administration and/or their re-election. You are making the point perfectly.
You jumped into the dialogue, as my questions were directed to [anyone] who supports this admin./its re-election.
Why won’t you just answer the question? Speak for yourself…I’m not asking you for expounding philosophy on the corruption of the gov’t or hypothetical legal ramifications/exceptions, blah, blah, blah.
The question is oh, so simple.
I believe its clear that I, and those families, and the oh very few others you seem to think have asked these questions are doing exactly as you suggest:
“Think like a detective, Kim. Or an attorney. Look for cause, effect, motive, evidence. Ask basic questions. Come to basic, rational conclusions. “
The problem, if you’ve managed to miss it altogether, is that the accused/the administration, has conveniently exempted itself from the entire accountability process.
This is the last I’ll write on this 6- I think I’ve made my point, and if you refuse to answer, you have, too.
Peas
I really don’t know what else to say, Kim. You keep demanding answers that may serve your needs but have no legal bearing:
“Do YOU personally think that the Prez. and other leaders charged by the families should answer their questions, under oath?”
Charged? By what evidence and in which Court of Law?
No, of course I don’t, simply because the President needn’t answer for something he’s not been LEGALLY charged with, due to lack of evidence, any more than you or I.
Do you think Clinton should get on the stand of public opinion and defend himself against “charges” of rape? Even after he resumed private life when Executive priviledge expired and without national security concerns?
You tell me, Kim. Should a sitting President be expected to answer to any and all who would challenge his leadership?
Could that possibly be in the rules someplace?
Do I personally think he should undergo this inquisition? Absolutely not; by what right should I (or that group) expect that procedure and security be waived?
Clinton was impeached for breaking the law. There was evidence and due process was served. With a million fruitcakes touting conspiracy theories against Bush, how about we just wait for one of them to make some real evidence stick after which point we can likewise charge and impeach Bush?
It’s precisely this partisan hysteria that gives the Democrats (you are one, yes?) a black eye. This is no more a valid question than have you stopped kicking the dog.
Bernie - glad to have you back and I was going to alert you to the wierdness being perpetrated over your name. Knowing that you are a fine, well brought up, Southern gentleman, I knew that couldn’t possibly be you. I can’t imagine that inthesetimes doesn’t have a way to prevent duplication of user names, since they require an email address to post.
Now that Scott is off on a hot date and 6Pack is involved in a constitutional conundrum festival, with a little obfuscation on the side with Kim, I’m all kicked back just enjoying the show after a hard day holding the line.
Kim, like you I’ve been reading indy news for a long time. Unlike some of the posters with a particular agenda for which they seek only that which provides support (or an easy target for their pithy analysis), I’m a curious person. I like reading different points of view, which is not to say I don’t have one of my own. As even 6Pack has acknowledged, none of us are burdenless in that regard.
I’ve traveled to 47 of the lower 48 states, Hawaii, Canada, Mexico,and much of Europe. I’ve worked in Germany, lived in Chicago, LA, NYC, a tiny town in extreme northern Wisconsin, and now in a midsize town. I’ve earned my living as a waitress, clerical worker, seamstress, design professional, manufacturer (as an owner of a business), and an over the road truck driver (big semi, 3 week runs). I’ve learned three languages in addition to English, but am unforgivably rusty in all of them. I’m only telling you this so you’ll know that I haven’t led the insular life you remark upon.
Lately I’ve been out canvassing for the Kerry and Feingold campaigns. Take heart - I did. People are waking up from their long dreamy sleep. People are becoming galvanized. They are seeing that this administration is running the country into a deep ditch, and they’re getting damn angry about it. The angriest ones are the Republicans who voted for Bush. They feel betrayed for obvious reasons. And they are voting. We offer them absentee ballot request forms if they are already registered, but most turn them down. They want to go to the polls, they want to gather with others and bring their family members. These are not people who are readers of indy news, or much news of any kind. I’ve done my canvassing in modest neighborhoods where people take care of their homes and their kids, go to church on Sunday, and give generously to charity. Most of them are voting for Kerry.
I agree with much of what you’ve said about how compromised both candidates and parties are by their connections to corporations, and yes, it should be a topic of discussion during the campaign. But then I have to remember that perfection is often the enemy of good. Right now, IMHO, it is imperative to break the back of the PNAC’ers and throw them out the door along with their dreams of further military misadventures and global corporate pillage. It’s time to make peace with our allies, identify common threats, and work together to contain and eliminate them. And I am not speaking only of Islamic extremist terrorists. I refer as well to the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of all types, environmental degradation, the continuing cycle of famines and pestilence, the impending crises in fossil fuel and clean water supplies, and the increasing threats on the communicable disease front.
It’s popular to say that only America can lead on these issues, but I’m not convinced that’s true. I believe it is true that if America refuses to participate, much less lead, that the world will isolate us as best they can and hold us at bay by any means necessary.
So while some would like to argue about Secular Humanism or trade insults all day (though once in awhile I feel compelled to respond in a manner that will dispel the notion that liberals are wussy), I prefer to roll up my sleeves and get those voters to the polls to take the first step in putting things right. For me, there are only two choices on the ballot in a few short weeks. My choice is obvious, and I also know it is only one of many choices I will make over the coming months and years.
I hope you’ll find a way to work with voters in your neighborhood that will motivate them to get to the polls or obtain and absentee ballot - if you live where DRE’s are used. Don’t despair.
Kim, the problem with your argument is a fundamental flaw: “...the accused/the administration, has conveniently exempted itself from the entire accountability process.”
The Administration has no such accountability obligation unless and until (1) evidence of a crime is presented, (2) Executive priviledge is waived or expires, and (3) national security is not jeopardized. Probably there are many more conditions that go along with this; I’m no lawyer.
When you begin with the faulty presupposition that due to lack of evidence, a Presidential Administration (or private citizen) is subject to proving innocence, you’ll always end up in the quagmire you find yourself in, Kim.
Thanks Joanne. I’m having trouble getting to sleep tonight. Been to stressed lately I think. Keep up the good work. After today, I’m really starting to think we’re going to win this one.
<<Do I personally think he should undergo this inquisition? Absolutely not; by what right should I (or that group) expect that procedure and security be waived? >>
Well 6- Ya did it. Whew! I know it was tough. But thanks for being the ONLY person I’ve ever asked to OPENLY admit that it is not important to them that the individual and his staff who may have been responsible for gross negligence, at the very least, that allowed for the tragic event-which, unbelieveably, they are now using as the cornerstone of their agendas and entitlement to re-election, be required (forget simply cooperative and willing) to answer even the most obvious and relevant questions from the people they supposedly serve.
Furthermore, you so graciously went on to demonstrate, in textbook style I must say, what intelligent people love to loathe about the “Rabid Right”:
Whenever possible, and particularly when faced with a really obvious and uncomfortable question that there’s no way to side-step- “Mention CLINTON.”
This is really a stretch tho, 6…Should Clinton be required to answer the questions FOR Bush and the other leaders who (I mistakenly thought) were accountable to us for their actions. Or should Clinton just be required to answer questions about his actions on that day? I’m not sure I’m connecting the dots….
Sorry, not a “Clintonite” or a Democrat, which you also managed to parrot in perfect paradigm. Now I know that those would be the two best reasons why I, or any other American would think the responsibility of our leaders is relevant…
But, you’ll have to think of a better reason that you’d offer the families for why they do not deserve answers or accountability from our leaders.
Kind of like spinning endless talk and massive distraction about the complications involved in making a decision to “Shoot-down”, rather than answering the direct, still never answered questions about why the hell NO ONE MOVED according to policy or procedure that tragic day, and not one person has been held publicly accountable for a single mistake!
Brooks,
Good morning, If I may respond to the paragraph beginning….“So, notwithstanding the Judeo Christian roots of western civilization and
the legal expressions that grew from these roots into the formative
documents of colonial America and into our Constitution, morality is a
question for philosophy and it is not a directly controlling concept in the
First Amendment. Now if you want to talk about fairness, that’s a whole
other ballgame.”
According to historian Robert T. Handy,“No more than 10 percent—probably less—of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.” This would suggest to me that there is no Judeo Christian roots in our Constitution. This is further borne out by the letters of Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Paine who all stated their specific unbelief in Christianity. Adams in particular wrote,“The United Stated of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artiface, imposture, hypocrisy, aqnd superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curisity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of af Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reson and the senses.
“....Thirteen governments (of the original states) thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” Such wording is very clear in its attempt to completely cut the divine out out of the process.
One other quick note to go along with that is the reference to the laws of the land coming from this Judeo Christian beginning. The 7th Ammendment to the Constitution states, “In suits at common law…the right of the trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law.” Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his leter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the dat of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of teh common law…This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced until the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then was a space of two hundred years, during which the comman law was in existence, and Christianity, had no part of it.”
There being no proof in existence of common law ever being adopted to include Christianity and since it did not exist as a religion yt in England and because they were not yet Christians, Jefferson said “we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
6gun I have read your satements with much anticipation and am sorry to be so late tonight getting home. My days and nights oft times run together. I look forward to asking a few more questions of you regarding you post. Please bear with me for another day and thank you again for posting it. I thoughly enjoyed it.
Lyle
You’re not in Lake Wobegon, nor are you living in reality apparently. What a hypocritical and delirious dissertation from member of a political party whos shining stars are nothing more than a pathetic patchwork of elitist tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, backpack toting, granola-eating, pot-smoking, Patchouli-wearing, Jetta-driving, rainbow flag-waving lunatic liberal Democrats.
A party who perpetually practices the spread of pessimism, dependency, and hopelessness at every turn. You should be so proud.
And the very same party that boasts an ever-increasing number of self-serving, hate-obsessed kooks who have hijacked the Democrat party in recent years; stellar statesmen like Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Richard Dreyfus, Al Franken, Janine Garafalo, and Whoopi Goldberg to name but a few. Even lower on the evolutionary ladder are the putrid duo of Paul Begala and James Carville.
I will never understand why rich, out of touch Hollywood liberals think anyone actually cares what they think. Reality is the last thing they are qualified to comment on.
Your inherent unwillingness to scrutinize your own pathetic political party indicates that you appear to be suffering from severe over-exposure to Democrat derision and suffering a significant bout of political imprudence. But don’t worry, it’s all too common this time of year. In fact, I understand that there was a massive outbreak of it in Boston just a few weeks ago. But a cure is at hand. A few weeks of intense cerebral therapy and we should have you back on your feet and thinking on your own again in no time.
I am voting for President George W. Bush because he, like the majority of Republicans and other adult free-thinking Americans, understands that you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift, you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot help small men by tearing down big men, you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, you cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer, you cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred, you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence, and most important, he understands that you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
You and your insipid ilk clearly do not understand these concepts, and that is precisely why John Kerry will lose in a landslide on November 2. A landslide we haven’t seen the likes of since Dukakis. People are tired of partisan politics, tired of your whining and crying, and tired of your tedious bashing of our president.
Zell Miller’s speech should have been a wake-up call to you all. I applaud him for his willingness to step forward and say what should of been said years ago. Trying setting aside your insipid rhetoric and rantings long enough to absorb what Miller so eloquently stated.
In closing, here’s a little something for you to suck on while you fein your dismay at this opposing viewpoint, and heighten your illogical and psychotic anger at President Bush… What is the definition of insanity? Repeating the same action and expecting a different result. You ran a laughable liberal from Massachusetts for president once before and he was trounced. Now you’re trying it again and expecting a different result. Sounds pretty insane to me.
Get your crying towels out ladies and gentlemen, election day is coming and you’re not going to like the outcome—-nor the next four years.
Joanne Roush wrote:
“Extremist fundamentalists of all persuasions are currentlly attempting to have their way. Have you read Tom DeLay? He’s determined to turn the USA into a theocracy - Christian of course.”
His minions are no doubt hiding explosives in some school library as we speak.
I have read DeLay, and I completely disagree with his ideas on moving religion ‘back’ into government. But his beliefs, however misguided, are in no sense comparable to the intentions of the Islamist mullahs and the murderous actions of their followers. Beware moral relativism in this regard:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/77
Most definitely, we’re not in Lake Woebegon Anymore.
<<Right now, IMHO, it is imperative to break the back of the PNAC’ers and throw them out the door along with their dreams of further military misadventures and global corporate pillage. It’s time to make peace with our allies, identify common threats, and work together to contain and eliminate them. And I am not speaking only of Islamic extremist terrorists. I refer as well to the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of all types, environmental degradation, the continuing cycle of famines and pestilence, the impending crises in fossil fuel and clean water supplies, and the increasing threats on the communicable disease front.
It’s popular to say that only America can lead on these issues, but I’m not convinced that’s true. I believe it is true that if America refuses to participate, much less lead, that the world will isolate us as best they can and hold us at bay by any means necessary. >>
Well said, Joanne. But don’t you think that part of the PNAC’s “thinking” while in their tank is “Why do they hate us?” I mean, look how fast the “well-thought” answers came to that question when it was asked, once. It’s clear they’ve done lots of thinking about the rest of the world. We didn’t even have to think about it again after they told us. They’ve got it all worked out for those “Aye-raaabs” and them Brazilians, wait, do they have black folks in Brazil, will we have to liberate them too? Well, there’s a whole lot of them kinda things I know they’ve got all figgered out. Don’t you just feel a great sense of safety and security knowing that they’ve got it all handled and we should just get back to shopping, until the next color code elevation and further instruction?
Wish I had the sustained sense of security that those who’ve put their trust in Bush seem to have. It’s second only to the zealotry fundamental Christians have that their proclaimation of the name Jesus is their ticket to Heaven. Very, very scary!
I wish, Joanne, that I felt at least 2 degrees better about Kerry than I do about Bush. It will be a sad, sad day if/when I cast a vote on 1 degree of difference in the direction we’re currently headed.
Thank you for your contribution to this dialogue and to positive change on the planet.
Peace out for tonight all.
Any of you milquetoast minions of the left wing want to step up and defend the hypocrisy of this little incident…?
Just last week, the Kerry bunch and their liberal legion of Democrat media spinners were whining and crying from coast to coast on radio, TV, and in newspapers about those mean old Republicans who were in New York having their convention at Madison Square Garden, and saying mean-spirited things about poor ol’ Kerry. At the same time, countless numbers of angry, inmature, and sometimes violent protestors were repeatedly marching in the streets outside and even posing as Republican delegates and volunteers inside in an attempt to disrupt, disturb, and dispute.
Did Republicans chastise them, harass them, or heaven forbid, harm them? Of course not! The media would have had a field day if they had. And besides, the Republicans are not typically the unstable, quick to anger imbeciles that you tend to collect and cultivate in your party.
So what happens just days later, today, in Cincinnati, when ONE middle-aged man stands up and attempts to challenge Mr. Flip-Flop, John Kerry during a campaign stop and ask him a simple question in a crowd of hundreds of so-called “peace loving” Democrats?
Democrats in the audience immediately attack and assault him, twist him into a headlock and shove him to the ground! Area TV newscasts aired the incident in its entirety and it was viciously violent and absolutely appalling.
Someone needs to remind these hypocritical low brows that there’s still a thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this country. And it applies to Republicans also! This is the same “broad-minded” bunch who constantly screams about civil rights, right to question authority, right to protest, etc., etc., etc. Give peace a chance? Give me a break…
I guess the man should have instead grabbed his peace sign necklace, his Birkenstock sandals, and his “I HATE BUSH” sign and then stood up. Then they would have welcomed him with flowers and open arms! Maybe it’s time they changed the Democrat symbol from a donkey to a hippo-crit.
Let’s see if the national media splashes this alarming footage all over the news again and again and again. Not likely as it wouldn’t damage or demean President Bush.
But they’ll continue to tell us how bad the events at Abu-Ghraib prison were. Oh, I get it… A handful of American soldiers haze a few Iraqi criminal prisoners and the liberal US media goes ballistic. But Americans attack and violently assault another American in public and there’s no problem—nor will there probably be any arrests! And will they demand Kerry apologize for the violent attack that happened right in front of him? Of course not.
The bottomline is your nothing more than a bunch of hypocritical, hysterical, half-wits. Have a nice day.
6gun
Good morning. I just had to say that Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress which is an impeachable offense. And well he should have been I might add. Having his nob polished in office is of no consequence as far as a point of law. Strictly between his wife, his God if he has one and himself.
I really need to hit the hay pardner catch you tomorrow.
Lyle
Robert, it’s too late and totally unnecessary for me to go into a frothing, adjective assigning vilification of an entire population of loosely-lumped together individuals as you seem to need to in order to lend credibility to your points. I will, however, simply ask you a few questions that came to mind while reading your rant.
You have related a pretty awful sounding story about the actions of a few people who behaved,it sounds like, inappropriately or even criminally. I’m not sure exactly why you hold John Kerry responsible for that, directly or even in the most remote stretch. In case you haven’t read any of my posts, I’m not a Kerry supporter, and I, like probably most of the other attendees at this event, or republicans at various events, or liberals at various events, or anyone else who’s not unstable, would never endorse these types of behaviors. Why must you indict every “liberal” you’ve clearly identified by their footwear and a whole laundry list of lifestyle choices you know to be components present in all “liberals”, for the actions of a few assholes? You liken this to the “Hazing” by a “few soldiers at Abu Graib???” What kind of “X” are you getting that so revises reality? Whoa, you probably have a good shot at a writing slot for Limbaugh with that kind of relativism.
Since you brought up the free-speech thing, tho, and you feel that Kerry should make some public apology to the man for the hinderance of his free speech, I’m wondering if you might remember the details of the arrests, detainments and denials of diplomas of students at a college who stood and silently turned their backs on Bush during his visit to their school during the last year sometime. Sorry, I don’t remember the dates or details, as its another one of those stories I’ve tried to block out of my beliefs in the assault on civil ilberties implemented by this administration and carried out by “law enforcement” with our tax dollars. If anyone can remember the school and/or has any reference links, help me out.
Anyway, Robert, I’m wondering if you heard about that, and whether or not Bush has made a public apology for the detention, harassment and suppression of the “free speech” of those silent students, peacefully protesting him at their school that day. Maybe they were all packin’ pot?
Kim,
Why do I want to hold Kerry accountable for that incident? Because apparently that is the same standard that Democrats have held George W. Bush to for the past four years. Is that equally unfair? They blame Bush for everything. Period. If the coffee is cold at the White House, I guarantee you that the DNC is issuing a press release on it, condeming Bush for his failure to keep coffee at its previous temperature. “It’s the coldest coffee since Hoover was in the White House!”
Isn’t it annoying to have to read, endure, and hear such drivel as I posted in the previous e-mail? And you only had to deal with it for a minute or two. Hopefully, every Bush-basher on this message board—and there’s clearly a nest of them—that so freely, smuggly, and willingly spews their own version of such baseless partisan rhetoric at every turn, will now, even if it’s for a brief moment, understand exactly how I have felt for four long years as I have listened to supposedly otherwise intelligent Democrats attack and belittle President Bush. What happened to the days that Americans showed the president a modicum of respect, even if they didn’t agree with him?
If they truly believe the garbage they have been hauling during this time then I actually pity them and hope that they will someday evolve from their ignorance. And these type of message boards are a prime breeding ground for the “me too’s” of the world.
Just read these silly, swooning, senseless posts: “Oh Garrison, I love you because you bash the Republicans! That makes me feel so good about my own pathetic existence because rather than get out and make a difference in the world, I would rather be miserable and blame Bush for every single problem in the world today. Aren’t we so superiorly intelligent, Garrison??”
If it wasn’t so sickening and such a sad reflection on the person posting the message, I would laugh.
In order for a person to actually believe many of the horrible things Bush has been accussed of during his four years, that person would have to be so cynical, so misinformed, so blind, so dark-hearted, and so inherently mean-spirited, they should seek serious professional psychological attention immediately.
I don’t know about you, but frankly, I’m up to my neck in my distaste and dissatisfaction with the attacks from both sides. Neither side has a higher moral ground here. And when I read such silliness that Garrison apparently penned, and the subsequent flood of “so glad someone said it” messages, it just makes me want to puke.
For four years I’ve listened to it but now I’ve decided that the issues we face are far too important to permit these childish adults free rein. I’m their worst nightmare: A Republican who is no longer going to sit by and politely accept their elitist and harmful antics. Enough is enough. Bring it on and buckle up, it’s going to be as rough and tumble and as politically bloody as they choose to make it. No holds barred.
I intend to counter them at every turn, to educate where they dare to obscure, and to vanquish them and their kind when election day comes. It’s my duty as a citizen, it’s my responsibility as a concerned American, and it is absolutely my pleasure and my newfound passion.
<Not sure why you feel you have to reply in multiple posts. Guess it’s number=strength of argument. For the sake of readers I’ll condense everything in one post.>
“Where in fact did I say that “if a lot of people say something it must be true”?”
Your quote, “There are 254 Swift Boat Vets for Truth but barely more than about a dozen guys for Kerry (not a terribly good ratio).” You’re arguing that there’s more truth in numbers. Sounds pretty good, except the prudent person would look at the circumstances to see if those allegations can be supported. Here’s where the SWIFTVETS failed.
“And then you turn around and tell me that “9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me. Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true.” “
Sure, it’s called turning your argument against you, I’m trying to point it out in terms you understand. Thanks for agreeing with me 254 people doesn’t = truth.
Funny how the argument changes as long as the situation fits your side. Jessica Lynch = hero (and I agree) despite not firing, John Kerry = Not a hero despite 5 medals because he didn’t take a bullet, just shrapnels.
“Acutually, sir, a self-inflicted wound DOES NOT qualify by Navy standards. It has to result from enemy fire.”
From Army Regulation 600-8-22 (I assume the Navy is similar, go look for yourself).
“(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, EXCEPT when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.”
Now you’re going to argue it wasn’t ‘in the heat of battle’.
From Kerry’s diary regarding the action, which you guys are happy to quote:
“The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.”
Sounds like battle to me.
“Actually, sir, some of his other medals are suspicious and there is already a full investigation underway.”
Nope, you pointed out ONE, the ‘Silver Star with V’ typo. The worst that will there is that the (probably retired) clerk will get diciplined for sloppiness. Just more dirty tricks, implying that there some kind of conspiracy when there are none.
“Why is it that when a Kerry “discrepancy” is uncovered, it warrants only a casual “so what” when in fact he’s the one running for President on his Vietnam record, but when you find a discrepancy within 254 Swift Boat Vets, it yields a “See there, they’re all a bunch of liars”?”
Because there’s been no proof (beyond questionalbe affadivits from people who weren’t there) that any of the allegations are true?
“Yep! Read the quote by Kerry. You’re spinning again.”
Ha, black calling kettle. You guys are spinning minor things into (gasp!) conspiracies and our rebuttals are spins?
“You get into the semantics of the word “enlist” “
Only because I did my research. Did you? Or do you consider talk-radio research? If you going to to nit-pick the meanings of Kerry’s words, try using the right terminology first.
“The date of King’s assassination was April 4, 1968. However, Kerry was not yet serving in Vietnam, but aboard the Navy frigate USS Gridley. According to Kerry’s campaign website it was not until Nov. 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.”
You ignored the part above that: “Feb 1968
Deployed to Western Pacific aboard the USS Gridley and requests duty in Vietnam”
And this “February 9, 1968 USS Gridley departs for a Western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment, to engage in operations in support of the Vietnam War. Ship spends time in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam, at Subic Bay in the Philippines and in Wellington, New Zealand”
Navy personnel frequently refer to cruise off Vietnam as being ‘in Vietnam’. And last I checked, Gulf of Tonkin is Vietnam, there was a little incident there as I recall.
“Trying to change the subject from John Kerry to your take on Judicial Watch is a transparent attempt at obfuscation?”
Are you asking me or is this a statement? Sorry, but for prudent people the source is just as important as the allegations.
“Would a negative claim against John Kerry have to come from a left-wing group for you to take it seriously?”
No, but it would take a neutral or non-partisan group for me to take it seriously. Sorry, but the right-wing has a nasty habit of making wild accusations against their enemies.
“A typo? Adding a V is a typo? No. Spelling “Silver Star” as “Sliver Satr” would be a typo. Not adding a V. It’s very specific. You’re spinning again. Making excuses.”
Take a look at the form. Looks like someone copied the ‘with V’ from the Bronze Star right above it.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Since Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’ why is this even an issue? Seriously, if you guys want credibility, you’re going to have to look for something better than that. Crying ‘Wolf!’ over nothing isn’t going to help.
“You also didn’t address the other discrepancies cited in the complaint.”
I’m not going to waste my time on tripe. They’re been addressed many many times at various sites if one cares to look. Last I checked, the burdle of proof rest on the accuser. Frankly, there’s not enough basis in the claims I’ve addressed so far to make any of them credible. You guys are just trying to throw tons of mud to see which sticks. I’m not playing that game.
“And simply saying that “it’s not factual or news-worthy” doesn’t really MAKE THE CASE that it isn’t factual or news-worthy does it? Neigh-saying is not an argument, and that something is inconvenient to your ideology is not a criterion for veracity or significance.”
Hey, I’m just trying to help you out with your ‘the media is against me’ paranoia.
You can’t prove a negative, so there’s no point for me to go there.
That does it. I am no longer a fan of Prairie Home Companion. Anybody who can libel the President like that, one of the few honorable men we’ve had in office in awhile, doesn’t deserve my support. He’s taking advantage of the fact that a public official can’t sue for defamation and that’s despicable in my book.
I really enjoy Mr. Keillor’s programs and value his opinion. Unfortunately, like most “entertainers” that stray from their world of fictious fantasy, Mr. Keillor view of reality doesn’t pan out. It’s unfortunate that he has chosen to use his “soapbox” for political campaigning. At least “Arnold” got himself elected to office to legitimize his political strategy.
Lyle,
The religious context of the Founders was a competition of Christian sects. Read your Federalist Papers. The Constitution was written, in part, to moderate the competition of Christian sects who were at each other’s throats in the old country.
Federalist No. 2 Author: John Jay
* * *
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people
descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
Federalist No. 10 Author: James Madison
* * *
A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.
Federalist No. 51 Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
* * *
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.
Kim,
Three times I gave you the benefit of the doubt and led you by your lengthening nose thru the sheer idiocy of your assertion that the President needed, at any moment deemed by you leftist asses, to drop his tools and undergo your own pet inquisition.
Yet, burdened by your obvious mental deformity, you have the supreme arrogance to come back with the rot above. Your lunacy and self-impressed holiness obviously know no bounds, as is consistent with your lying kind. You cannot argue your own points, you endulge your own stereotypes and condescending agenda no matter what fantastic path they lead you down. You’ve made such a fool out of yourself you need little from anyone else.
You possess not a shred of integrity, nor can you, or do you even care, to discuss real issues about real problems in a realistic world. You make me as heartsick as all the other mentally disturbed, pathologically dishonest, one issue Leftist Globalist Socialists who pollute this country.
Kim, you’re a liar and a cheat. You don’t deserve freedom, much less kindly explanations of your mental disease labored over by people infinitely more researched and fair-minded that you.
Now that you’ve outed your little hysterical victimizing character, how about you tell me, right now, just why we shouldn’t demend to your holy UN that France be thrown out on their stinking, cheese-eating surrender-monkey ears. In fact, why don’t you tell us exactly the US shouldn’t evacuate the UN bldg before razing it to the ground after the UN food programs ended up killing American soldiers.
Come on, Kim, stop lying thru your teeth and spouting all manner of nonsensical, seditionist hate talk and act like an American for a change. Or, like I say, get out.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm
Wow, 6Gun, nice chit chat. Now remind us kind hearted readers; what division of the SS did you serve? If you do respond, dear sweet tempered 6Gun, try your best not to use profanity (profanity is a writing tool for those with weak minds and weak arguments).
How Sad. I have enjoyed Keillor’s shows and comments since the 80’s. I have been a number one fan. I have almost been fanatical in my appreciations for this great humor.
Consequently, I was very discouraged to read this rambling article filled with such venom, falshood and rancor. Garrison, you poor man! You have no solid foundation.
This is my THIRD appeal. PLEASE unsubscribe me from the inundation of comments on Garrison Keillor’s article which are forwarded to me by the score.
Please do whatever it takes to relieve me of this truly onerous burden.
The Keillor piece, by the way is terrific.
ErnestNagy@Starpower.net
I came to DC as a Reagan Republican in 1982 to go to college. After the tax reform of ‘86, when my poverty level income tax went up $600, while my upper middle class dad’s went down $800, I stopped allying myself blindly to either party, since both screwed me.
Unlike most people, I have gotten more liberal, rather than conservative with age. Mr. Keillor’s article is superb.
Mr. Oplas sums up the way the Republican party has gone since Reagan. Under Reagan, questioning policy and speaking out was being a good citizen participating in the process. Now, it makes you unpatriotic. Political discourse has been replaced by vitriol.
I can only hope that Mr. Kerry sees this article and uses some of the great phrases.
Fresh outta your first year, L.C.? You ideas and Stereotyping 101 are for someone far, far less capable than I. Child. Grow up.
I am so worried about our country, particularly since I have some friends and family ... decent, well-educated people, who simply believe totally in Bush and the direction the Republican party is moving in. It so has echoes of Germany and those who blindly followed Hitler.
Thank you, Thank you, Garrison Keillor. It inspired me once more to try to get to the suits around Kerry, who do not seem interested in VOTES. I promised to give $1000 if a local fundraiser here in Maine for Kerry could get my letter full of Strong Comebacks for Kerry to the suits, or better, Teresa. Kedrry is letting down the side by his metooism.
“A. Oplas” writes: “...You are a talented, likeable man…
much more likeable when you keep out of the
political debate….”. What a great way for this person to make your point, Mr. Keillor! Any good American SHOULD BE PART OF THE “political debate”!
Mr. Keillor, you are exactly correct!
Ernie, you’re only subscribed because you checked the box to BE subscribed. Go to the bottom of the box in which you type your pleas for release and UNCHECK the damn box!
Mr Nagy,
At the bottom of the emails there should be a stop receiving notifications link which should allow you to stop comments being emailed.
Incidently, Keillor is correct as far as he goes, but he’s one-sided. Both mainstream parties are increasingly elitist. In this good cop, bad cop scenario the American public are the losers.
Thank you dear sweet-tempered 6Gun for your non-profanity ridden reply. It’s good to know that fine capable intellectuals such as your charming self can write sentenses without using harsh words. I was motivated to reply to your Hallmark sentiment to Kim, “Kim, you’re a liar and a cheat. You don’t deserve freedom, much less kindly explanations of your mental disease labored over by people infinitely more researched and fair-minded that you.” It just seemed so…oh, I don’t know…Precious Moments. I do wish you the best of luck in the future and I hope that you took my SS comment as the good natured joke I meant it to be.
Love,
Your Biggest Fan
Geoff,
Here’s a fairly amazing account of French (and German) arms, strategic parts, and support going to Iraq while the latter was under UN sanctions:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm
If you get to the end, you’ll see that the Bush administration (Powell) has gone overboard (excessively, IMHO) to de-emphasize these activities in the interest of reaching an accomodation with the French. I doubt Kerry could (or should) do more.
MN - I’ve been following your links today and here’s what I’ve seen:
One from the Telegraph that states that a Muslim cleric is having his residency status reevaluated by British authorities based on extremist statements to his congregation which may or may not be considered inciteful. IMO appropriate response to one suspected of criminal activities. Were he residing here, he probablly would have disppeared into our new gulag shortly after 9/11 along with an unknown number of residents who have yet to be heard from.
One from a blog that offers interpretation and analysis, not news in the sense of reportage of fact. The article you referenced implies a vast Muslim conspiracy has been in place since 1922 to take over the USA. So far they don’t seem to have accomplished a great deal in that arena. Looks like the Crusaders are on top of that effort.
One from the Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times which can hardly be considered a news-paper. It is a propaganda vehicle for an international criminal who has recently crowned himself the King of Peace and declared himself to be the second coming of Christ. Incidentally, this was done in the Senate Office Building with the participation of a number of elected officials. Hello? The lights are on, but is anybody home there? Maybe you should move back to Minnesota, since you’ve stated that your politics became so muddled when you moved out east.
Ooh, I wish I’d written that! Many, many thanks, Garrison…
Well, the “Washington Timss,” a wholly owned subsidiary of the Moonies, should really be taken with a grain — no, make that a block — of salt….You can get more facts from “The Onion.”
Garrison, you represent the values of average Americans better than anyone on the “hill”. Please consider taking a sabbatical from your current day job and running for office in ‘08. If an actor and a pro-wrestler can do it, why can’t you? You’ve got the gift of gab, maybe you should take a stab (at it)!
MN,
Thanks for the article.
Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me, not one bit. My long-time hunch is that the French government has been, off and on, sort of friendly with Saddam Hussein in any case for quite some while. In fact, I don’t think it far-fetched to assume that that was the case way back at the time of Desert Storm and even before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Somehow, when President Bush’s father was President, he managed to trump any possible hangup France had at the time in joining a coalition against Iraq. France swallowed any misgivings they may have had and consequently joined in for the ‘91(?) war. A credit to President Bush’s father, IMO.
The irksome question then still remains—again, IMO, granted—how come Bush’s father was able to get France to swallow any misgivings arising out of undue coziness with Iraq and join the first war, whereas Bush Senior’s son couldn’t get France to join for the second?
Honestly, I’m not gunning for some “gotcha” question here. I don’t pretend to know the answer myself. I’m simply interested in any thoughts you may have on why Bush’s son failed at what Bush’s father had successfully achieved, when it came to bringing both France and Germany around. Please, what, if anything, had changed in the meantime to make Bush’s son less successful? Sincere thanks.
Looking to the future, it is possible, I suppose, that Kerry as President may not have the good luck that Bush’s father had with Continental Europe either.
But, if that’s the case, is there then any way we can think up whereby
A) a Breslan or a Madrid can be successfully forestalled/prevented in the heart of Continental Europe and, _most_ importantly of all,
B) cities like Hamburg and other critical metropolitan centers throughout Continental Europe be more effectively cut off as potential “oxygen” footholds for Al Qaeda staging areas (which, tragically, is what Hamburg became)?
That’s ultimately the question I care about most. I don’t expect you to have a magic answer, of course. Neither do I. But please address this inquiry in some way, if you possibly can.
Again, sincere thanks,
Geoff
Somebody sent me this trinket.
“Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.”
I know it’s easier to point to the French, but perhaps we should examine how many dictators we’ve armed, including Saddam.
Joanne Roush,
Oh, sorry to aggravate you with the source. Actually, the article is the first of three excerpts of Gertz’ book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053153/qid=1094749959/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5169543-8669734?v=glance&s=books
Muddled? I never ‘stated’ that…I’m a social moderate and a fiscal conservative who dislikes big government and big business. That’s not inconsistent. I hope it’s the future of the Republican party, which appears to be heading in that direction.
Perhaps I’ve confused you because I’m not expressing extreme positions.
Geoff - I’ve been following your lines of inquiry through your posts and I’m curious about something. Why do you identify Hamburg, in particular, as an incubator for Al Quaeda activities? In my reading, it seems to me that a number of communities here in the US could be pointed to as well. And do we really know that the German authorities were unaware of and/or not keeping these people under surveillance? And not communicating with our clearly FUBAR intelligence agencies as to what they were discovering if anything?
Based on the de facto evidence of no major attacks on a par even with Madrid in either Germany or France, is it unreasonable to assume that both have made a successful effort to interdict such activity within their borders? I know many believe that they have appeased Islamic terrorists by refraining from joining the fracas in Iraq, but is that even the likeliest of scenarios? Or shall we attribute their freedom from major terrorist events to dumb luck? Could it be that the Germans and French have long experience in combatting domestic terrorism and that through a combination of diplomatic effort and targeted intelligence activity they have acted effectively to protect their populations? Could the same be said of our country in view of the fact that there has been no repeat of 9/11? I can’t help noticing that we’ve had problems here with suspects having to be released and cases dropped by the Justce Department recently. I also can’t help noticing that we have repeated information leaks, frequent warnings of danger, and have failed to install necessary security on much of our infrastructure including ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and even airports. This despite much public outcry, ballyhoo and billions in expenditures.
As to the success of Bush I in forming a more credible coalition than Bush II, perhaps it was the difference in goals for the two missions. Just for starters, the mission was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and in the process destroy or severely limit his capability to act beyond his own borders for some time. Having established this goal, and made a deal with our allies to obtain support, once that mission was accomplished, everyone did as agreed and packed it up and went home. No going on to Baghdad and deposing Saddam, even if it could have easily been done at that point. Bush 41 honored the deal he made with our allies.
Bush II clearly identified a very different goal this time around, and many of our traditional allies took a pass. Having long histories with colonialism, and occupation from both sides of the equation, I think this was a particularly unappealing adventure. In addition, the formation of the EU and its subsequent growth into an economic powerhouse rivaling the US has given ‘old Europe’ more of a sense of autonomy from US interests in recent years.
What is so fascinating to me is the British experience. I am intrigued by the fact that despite an enormous Muslim population, they also have not experienced a major terrorist event. They certainly can’t be accused of being other than our most vigorous supporter in Iraq.
What is your take on that?
MN - Sorry to have aggravated you with a critique of your links. No, really. Now I followed the link to Gerz’s book and read the liner notes, reader reveiws and was fascinated to see the other books most frequently ordered or considered of interest to purchasers of Gerz’s book. I think I’ll go get it from my library today.
One reader review stated that Gerz identifies three main goals:
“The bottom line on his conclusions is that we need 1. good reliable intelligence 2. the ability to execute quickly on that information 3. cooperation from the global community.”
It may surprise you to know that I agree completely and see no indication that this administration can execute effectively on either a strategic or tactical basis in any of these areas.
It does no good whatsoever to pretend that the USA arms industry is not an ongoing major player in this problem. We create most of the new technologies of death, and then we bestow them upon a waiting world. We arm tyrants and train terrorists and torturers with OUR TAX DOLLARS (excuse me for shouting) and then we are dismayed and outraged when they turn against us. Just like the morons who keep pit bulls and then are horrified and sorrowful when their own children are bitten, rather than just the mailman or a neighbor.
Sorry about the reference to your move from the Midwest as a source of your apparent confusion. No, really. I think you’re really trying to make sense of all this and I’m surprised you haven’t acknowledged our own part in the problems that concern you. Blameless victims? None of those here on this board.
It’s a real loss you can’t appreciate my fight-fire-with-fire tactics, L.C. Whatever shall I do now?
Speaking your mind is only allowed on the Left, where profanity and the blackest mendacity are merely the signs of perfectly righteous indignation.
Leftist ends are always justified by their lying, misrepresenting, anarchistic, profane means. I’m well aware of the slope of that playing field.
As proof, here’s the billionaire wife of the Man Who Would Be King (but who hasn’t answered reporter’s questions in a month and hasn’t answered ours about why he should be President EVER) speaking her, um, mind:
http://www.nbc10.com/politics/3717093/detail.html
Kim, when I left the thread yesterday you were in a fairly cordial mood, and I was cordial back at you. But after reviewing the last few pages this morning, I see that at some point later in the discussion you began to get quite snotty. Well, I guess we’re done with the phony cordiality. Nevertheless, I will address your concerns about PNAC one more time. (And by the way, this is the last time I will be commenting on this manufactured issue.)
First, a little bit about your faux concern for a group of 911 victims that seek to badger the current administration. Look Kim, I’ve seen this particular group on TV, debating other groups of 911 victims with whom they disagree, and this group you’re talking about is headed up by agenda-driven liberals - regardless of their official claim of being “non-partisan”, and they do not in any way represent the majority of 911 victims. A real search for answers, my dear, begins with William Jefferson Clinton. He let Bin Laden get away, at least twice, even after the first WTC bombing, and after numerous other terrorist attacks against the United States. It’s all very well documented, there’s no dispute on this Kim, and you can start by reading a very thoroughly documented (and independently verifiable) book by Richard Miniter called, “Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failure Unleashed Global Terror”. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months, and the wholly unsupported accusation that I have heard from the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, that Bush knew beforehand, is the most vile and disgustingly gutless lie I have heard in recent memory.
One of your concerns is that not enough Republicans have heard of PNAC. Kim, you may have to come to terms with the fact that PNAC is simply a conservative Washington think-tank. Nothing more, nothing less. Washington is full of them. Conservative, liberal, and otherwise. All think-tanks have a published agenda, nothing secret. PNAC wields no secret behind-the-scenes power. Every administration is informed by various think-tanks, conservative or liberal. And despite what some left-wing, agenda-driven, conspiracy-theorist website may tell you, there’s nothing new or unprecedented here Kim, do you understand that this is SOP? The best way to avoid people manipulating your ignorance is to not be so damned ignorant.
If memory serves, your most direct question addressed specifically to me was something like, “Why wasn’t PNAC mentioned at the RNC last week?” Well Kim, I already answered that, but I’ll try again. First, instead of asking why WASN’T it mentioned at the RNC last week, perhaps you should establish why SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN. We’ve been over this Kim. The PNAC agenda in its entirety is not one and the same with that of the RNC. If there’s some overlap and similarity here or there, these are just tangential connections and nothing more.
Kim, I’m not trying to be mean here, and I’m really not trying to insult you outright, but I have to be honest and say that you may be the most paranoid conspiracy-theorist I have ever come across. Again, I’m not trying to offend you Kim, but your irrationality is off the charts. And one of the signs that it is, is the fact that you expect others to share your obsession, and you become frustrated upon learning that they do not. Kim, you need to accept that there are going to be people in this world that do not think we ought to ask the French for permission to defend ourselves. And you need to accept that there are groups of very smart people that care very much about this nation, particularly about their children, their grandchildren, and yes, the innocent children of others, both here and abroad, and that their interpretation of events might differ from yours, and that their proposals for solutions might not be submitted for you approval.
The fact that you’re so irrationally paranoid of a Washington think-tank while at the same time we have muslim terrorists now targeting children in their quest for world domination is inexplicable. Last week in Beslan, the suffering of these children was very great and prolonged. Some where shot. Some were stabbed. Some of the preteen girls were raped, and the rest were blown-up along with their helpless parents and teachers. Others died slowly from thirst, dehydration, and heat stroke - not allowed to use the water fountains, not allowed to use the restrooms, and not allowed to drink anything but their own urine.
And you? Your biggest fear, neigh, paranoid obsession, is a Washington think-tank! Your mentality on this is a prime example of liberal meltdown, of a paranoid dementia, of ideological insecurity, of cognitive dissonance that cleaves to intellectually indefensible positions as a face-saving mechanism. No amount of holding your hands over your ears and singing “La la la la la” is going to relieve the pressure Kim. And I know you’ll never change. You’re too far gone in the downward spiral of irrationality and you’re past the point of no return.
I know you want to “break the back” of PNAC. But in that they have a constitutional right to exist, despite your disapproval, and in that you have no ideological or intellectual means to counter their valid positions, you might have to accept their existence as a fact of life. But if it makes you feel any better, just remember you’re not entirely alone in this. There are others as paranoid and as void of the slightest perspective as yourself. And you people can feed off each other, encouraging one another in your obsessions over imaginary boogeymen, hold your candlelight vigils and whine aplenty, all while ignoring the very real dangers with which we are confronted.
3gun and beam me up snotty: if either one of you ever had an original thought you probably would explode (personally I’m hopen you do finally get one;-)>.
You both are so exemplary of what is wrong with many people in this country and world today. Quite frankly you are unable to take facts and form a reasonable conclusion. I don’t know where you went wrong or what happened to you in your childhood but maybe some more drugs would help you out.
I read all your postings and then can’t figure out how you could possibly believe that crap. And if you do believe that crap then it so painfully obvious that there is a deep problem with what’s left of your thinkers.
Try meditation guys.
Creative thinking requires you to put two or more thoughts together and come up with a workable idea. You seem only to be able to repeat what you have been brainwashed into thinking. Then repeat it again and again.
Brainwashed by Brainwashington/Texas slime,
P.S. Thanks for the good words Joanne. Your a doll. Keep swingin. I lost count of the homeruns you have hit so far in this thread.
How many stikes do these suckers get, anyway?
There ooooooooooooooooooout here.
Tick tick tick tick…...1306 hours and 50 minutes…...that’s the clock runnin to show how long you got left before President Kerry is elected. Bye bye fellas.
A good night’s sleep will come when GWB is thrown out of the White House. I’m praying that will happen this year!
Now 2 1/2 gun or snooty whichever it was that responded to my post that there are only two things you need to know about Kerry and Viet Nam, I think it was you 2gun. If all that crap your repeating about Kerry is suppose to make a difference then I guess your man bush’s past would also come into play and so with that said it would be a good idea if you (1 1/2gun(I think you see where this is going) don’t you 1gun)?
That you 1/2gun should kinda like drop that line of bs. Don’t ya think 0gun?
Wooooo now I finally got the name right, 0gun. You definately shootin blanks boy. Makin a whole lotta noise but not hittin nuttin. Ya’ll. Narly that sheepdip. Surfs up dude!!!!!!!
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001831.html
Kerry Honorably Discharged from Senate
(2004-09-09)—On a day when new allegations surfaced about George W. Bush’s National Guard service in 1972, Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry officially received his honorable discharge from the U.S. Senate.
The discharge, coming just four years before the end of his fourth Senate term, was granted to allow Mr. Kerry to “pursue other interests at a time when the nation has a surplus of senators,” according to the official discharge letter.
Mr. Kerry immediately defended himself against charges that he had sought special treatment due to his status as a presidential candidate.
“Despite allegations that I rarely attended Senate sessions, committee hearings and votes, and that I have introduced no significant legislation in the past 20 years, this honorable discharge proves that I have fulfilled my duty to the nation,” Mr. Kerry said.
The Vietnam veteran added that, “unlike Mr. Bush, I have not made my record of political leadership a campaign issue. Instead, I have stayed focused on my military service 35 years ago. After all, that’s what’s most important to ordinary Americans.”
Mr. Keillor’s way with words is fantastic. He’s hit every Republican pop up mole on the noggin. The image of wild swine crowding around the public trough is a vivid and accurate sketch of the reality. Mr. Keillor has pointed to the dragon’s vulnerability in its heaving chest at the point of 9/11. The overlords of opulence and surveillance tell us that 9/11 “changed everything,” yet the truth is than 9/11 itself changed nothing. The changes, virtually all of them wrongheaded and counter productive, have been made afterwards. 9/11 was a terrible event which the Republicans (and too many Democrats) are simply capitalizing on for their own petty gains. “Homeland Security” has nothing to do with real security and everything to do with distributing lucrative contracts to mainly Republican recipients fleecing the nation’s treasury.
Right On! How could any one , me included, a Republican, vote for Cheney-Bush et al draftdodgers after they initiated a war of choice with others blood? If anyone is unfit to command It is Bush-Cheney. I still do not know which is serving as President. Prefice serving with mis.
[JR]
“Geoff - I’ve been following your lines of inquiry through your posts and I’m curious about something. Why do you identify Hamburg, in particular, as an incubator for Al Quaeda activities? In my reading, it seems to me that a number of communities here in the US could be pointed to as well.”
[GR]
Undoubtedly the case.
But I’ve been mentioning Hamburg solely because I’m concentrating for now on Continental Europe and because there was a recent article (may have been in the Wall Street Journal) that mentioned three Continental European capitals where either computers or similar materials were found relating to the nineteen hijackers of 9/11. The only city that my sieve-like brain seems to have retained of the three is definitely Hamburg, so I simply used that as a for-instance of disturbing activities in Continental European metropolises generally.
[JR]
“And do we really know that the German authorities were unaware of and/or not keeping these people under surveillance? And not communicating with our clearly FUBAR intelligence agencies as to what they were discovering if anything? “
[GR]
Yes, I recall when you made this point previously and, in fact, I acknowledged as much in my previous response but one to MN. Success there has been, yes. Efficiciency there has been, yes.
But in previously acknowledging your point, I also expressed concern, if you recall, about a certain cultural truculence in Continental Europe that may or may not be reflected in the debunking comments of one or two comedians over there concerning any Al Qaeda threat, and may or may not be due to any clumsiness on our part.
The fact that that attitude may or may not have impacted adversely on certain intelligence activities so far may not necessarily ensure that it could not impact adversely in terms of a future laxness down the road. The current truculence of Continental Europe is no doubt due to a number of factors (which may or may not include a possible clumsiness on our part in dealing with them, though certain Powell gestures may have ameliorated that), but it remains unfortunate and unhelpful, IMO.
Ultimately, all I’m concerned about is forestalling any laxness in the future, regardless of whether or not any clumsiness on our part was responsible for any truculence in the past, and regardless of whether or not past intelligence operations were fortunately immune to its effects.
It is simply more stable, IMO, to have everyone “reading out of the same book”, so to speak. If that entails refining the book a bit to accommodate our concerns, fine. And if that entails refining the book a bit to accommodate their concerns, also fine. Just so long as an alliance this crucial is as much in agreement as possible and as large as possible, IMHO.
That still leaves the overriding question I posed to MN. How most effectively can one address the apparent truculence in Continental Europe today _in_ _case_ it may lead to tragic carelessness on their part in future?
[JR]
“<SNIP> What is so fascinating to me is the British experience. I am intrigued by the fact that despite an enormous Muslim population, they also have not experienced a major terrorist event. They certainly can’t be accused of being other than our most vigorous supporter in Iraq.
What is your take on that? “
[GR]
Perhaps, it was vigilant intelligence in Britain’s case as well.
There is also, I gather, a certain impatience and vigilance within the Muslim communities as well. I recall, vividly, that, shortly after 9/11, a British imam exploded with fury to a British reporter:
“I wasn’t born yesterday; neither were most of the members of the congregation here. All of us smelled something was off when two or three interlopers started attending here and bothering my parishioners with all sorts of nonsense, talking violence and seemingly trying to win converts. No one listened to them, being quite exasperated with them instead. I finally had to call Scotland Yard.
“I said, ‘Look, you’ve got to remove these guys. They’re giving us the creeps, and no one here wants them or likes them. I want you to send some people over and simply escort these guys out of here. They’re not welcome.’
“No one came from Scotland Yard. So we’ve had to simply ignore these creeps as best we could, getting more frustrated and exasperated with Scotland Yard by the week. Can’t you understand we’re British citizens too? We’re entitled to protection just like anyone else. Why couldn’t they send someone to flush out these creeps? It’s an outrage! We were simply ignored!”
Interesting story, isn’t it? It’s occurred to me that it’s possible that something else was Britain’s friend here. Not just the readiness of the Muslim comunities to police themselves. It may also have been a higher level of education that protects them from paying serious attention to the kind of rot Al Qaeda and fellow travelers spout.
Anyway, just a thought.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Extra, Extra - especially for Robert! More fisticuffs at a Kerry rally! I take back what I said about some of you right wingnuts being pantywaists. It takes a really dedicated nut to take on a bunch of narly vets (Jimboy, darlin’, go read this one!).
Here’s your link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/3710608/detail.html
P.S. I’ve looked all over for a link to the alleged incident regarding a Bushie beaten up at a Kerry event in Ohio. Anybody got a link to an actual news org on that? And don’t send me to any freeper sites - I’m talking local news media if possible.
“The image of wild swine crowding around the public trough is a vivid and accurate sketch of the reality.”
Wow, after claiming that anybody still drawing breath could see that the Left depends on images to make their postmodern, emotional, knee-jerk choices about the management of freedom in a hostile world, along comes one and lays it right out there.
Suggest one and all consider picking up a copy of The Vanishing Word by Hunt to get a grip on how we’ve turned from a nation of literate, critical thinkers to a land of relativistic images-centric sloths.
Thank’s Gregg, for signing up to the Kool Aid bowl in plain view. You and your Mr. Rogers pop-up moles have a nice day now.
JimBoy, I’m going to list all of the terribly clever things in your previous post that would clearly indicate you are my intellectual better:
1) “3gun” (rather than “6Gun”)
2) “beam me up snotty” (rather than “Scott”)
3) “If either of you ever had an original thought you probably would explode (personally I’m hopen you do finally get one…wink)
4) “Try meditation guys”
5) There ooooooooooooooooooout here.
6) Brainwashed by Brainwashington/Texas slime
That last one is my favorite.
I was also illuminated by your unique definition of creative thinking, and judging by your clever wordplay, I will not deny that you are an expert on the subject.
Additionally, I would say that your “creative” syntax is a positive testament to your mental prowess. You’re a credit to your cause JimBoy, and I know that the other liberals here are damn proud to have you on their side.
Lastly, if you would care to show some mercy, to help me out, would you please establish exactly how you came to know that we have been brainwashed (according to the dictionary definition of the word)? My small mind has so far not been able to grasp the concept that simply because I have the gall to actually have come to different conclusions than your own, that that in and of itself would lead one to believe I had been brainwashed. So please, explain yourself very thoroughly and specifically.
Also, in that you have not rebutted my last exchange with you, but rather skipped ahead and made the present insightful proclamation, would you help me to understand how that means you’ve won the argument?
Thank you JimBoy. I eagerly anticipate you putting me in my place again.
“and claimed the right to know what books we read”
Garrison used words as icons, no facts, just allusions to things the Democrats hate and accept as true. One error in fact is the quote above, which refers to the Patriot Act. It is a power the administration has and wants to keep, but this power was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Democratic Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object. In the house the bill was passed 357 to 66. Interestingly, there was more opposition in the Republican controlled chamber. I have heard an interview with one of the NY congressmen, I think it was Charles Rangel, complain about how no one read the USAPATRIOT Act before it was passed. Well whose fault is that?
I’m not sure the second sentence of the quoted portion of Garrison’s message fits very well with the first sentence. Right now, it seems as if there are too many angry people on both sides to allow us to work together toward the many common goals that are trumpeted by almost all of us.
“This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.
This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.”
Robert,take a chill pill dude.
You seem to have a problem with preserving nature,as in the form of ANYTHING.I guess that’s why you are a republican.Your president just wants to cut down all the trees,pollute the water,and the air.Now,I do understand that there is more money in selling bottled water,and it is economically better to grow tree plantations,rather than those dirty,diverse,unorganized virgin forests.NOT!
And of course what good is a backpack,other than to carry a bomb.Oh lord protect me from the mad bomber.Back packs are bad.I mean,they are efficeint carriers when you go into the woods.Oh No,not into the woods!
We all know that granola is the devils tool.I won’t go into the rest of the rant that you sprayed out.
I can’t address the democrat tirade that you went into eithe since I am worse than a democrat.I am an independent.Gasp!I will mention that when you talk about being hate obsessed that you might want to look into the mirror on that one,Bob.
You cite Zell(the madman)Miller as a role model.Whew that guy reminded me of a rabid dog,spittle flying and all.And when he wanted to challenge Cris Mathews to a duel,he was my hero.We should bring back duelling,as a way to thin out the politicians.I’m for it,how about you Bob?
That whole paragraph above of rant above the Zell Miller reference had so much spittle on it that I had a hard time seeing a reason to discuss it.
Your definition of isanity was—-Ah,different.What I see as insane is destroying a countrys water supplies by ignoring the EPA and allowing coal-fired power plants to not clean up their emmissions,even though the technology is available right now to eliminate 90%of their mercury emissions.I guess that making money is more important than protecting pregnant mother and their babys!You do realize that mercury,from coal-fired power plants, causes retardation in babys?I thought that the republican party was against killing babys,ie. abortion,but I guess it’s ok to have live retarded babys.Now that is insane to me.Ed P.
Michael Bierbaum wrote:
Response to Scott:
“hurting yet? I hope so.”
“like a baby to a tit”
“Ouch, that’s gotta hurt!”
You seem quite intent on causing me pain or personally insulting me. I certainly did not resort to that type of tactic, nor do I wish you any pain or bodily harm nor do will I insult your intelligence in this forum.
—————
On the other hand, you may just be a thin-skinned liberal that doesn’t know a figure of speech when he sees one.
Thank you Garrison: Recently I received via email the following from a Republican. She said it was well worth reading. And she was right. Read on.
This is well worth reading
Subject: The Fall Of A Republic
I remember reading this when I was quite young and thinking that was hogwash it would never happen to us. Ha! Just look at where we are now. At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior. “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.” “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith , From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.”
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, >Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent >Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore=127 million, Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore=580,000. Bush=2,2427,000
States won by: Gore=19, Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore=13.2, Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare…”
Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the “complacency and “apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake in this Election Year and that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.”
*****************************************
I have lived in big cities all of my life. I got my education, raised a family, paid taxes, voted. No one in my family has been in jail; no one in my family has been on welfare; no one in my family is standing on a corner drunk and/or drugged begging for dimes and quarters.
Be very careful Republicans. You forget that we are all Americans and these comparisons are foolish, ignorant and dangerous. Can it be possible that we want our government to be of those who think this way?
Mr. Bush pays farmers not to farm; he pays oil men to cap their wells; he pays welfare to those who live in areas that are not cities but they, too, are on welfare because the jobs are not there in that so-called sprawling wonderland. Mr. Bush is big business and big business is doing very well, especially when they outsource our jobs to make even more money.
So from an old woman I say, Republicans—Shame on You! Democrats—get out and vote because “apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom” be it in city, on farm, in the town, on a college campus, or on a ranch!
Right on, Grandma!
Well,it the rant and rave hour from Robert,the most sane person that I can remember since Zell(the maddog)Miller.
As I remember over 700 demonstrators were arrested at the RNC,bob.5oo were released the next day due to incorrect arrest procedures.I believe that there is STILL the right of public assemblege,bob.
Oh,I forgot.Hey Bob,those few prisoners that were “hazed” weren’t as bad as the one that was killed.Ed P.
Well, Scott, I should hope to be so psychic as to ascertain, diagnose and deride another person’s entire agenda and character based on a few posts raising issues about the associations, agendas and actions of our leadership.
“Leftist, paranoid, oh, wait-the MOST leftist paranoid conspiracy theorist you’ve ever come across (wow, really?), ignorant, and on you rant with all the slur-a-day senselessness which seems to be the trade-mark technique employed by “Compassionate Conservatives” who are annoyed or inconvenienced by others’ questions or opinions. Does it even occur to you that you haven’t gotten anything remotely resembling that venom from me?
What in the name of all that’s decent compels you to go into a tirade, launch a character assault and misrepresent everything I’ve said, simply because I’ve suggested that we should ask some questions you don’t like and require some accountability for job performance of our leaders?
Regarding the PNAC, which is NOT as you’ve tried to frame it an obsessive quest of mine, but as I clearly stated, more than once- an agenda that I belive should be included in open-debate among those voting Republican, most of whom are totally unaware of its influence in the agendas of our current administration- BTW, you quoted a comment from Joanne as mine regarding breaking the back of the PNAC. I have simply and steadfastly stated that Republicans should be made fully aware of this agenda. I would like to think most of them are intelligent enough to decide for themselves how much or how little influence it should/does have on the agendas of our leaders and direction of our country.
You again assert the following:
<<your most direct question addressed specifically to me was something like, “Why wasn’t PNAC mentioned at the RNC last week?” Well Kim, I already answered that, but I’ll try again. First, instead of asking why WASN’T it mentioned at the RNC last week, perhaps you should establish why SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN. We’ve been over this Kim. The PNAC agenda in its entirety is not one and the same with that of the RNC. If there’s some overlap and similarity here or there, these are just tangential connections and nothing more. >>
Scott, if you believe that, you’re either delusional or a shill for the PNAC. It is a guiding doctrine of the current administration, many of whom authored and are ardently implenting its agenda, (NOT of the Republican party, which is precisely my point- and which you continue to try to misconstrue as my ignorance or confusion).
If you insist on denying this, you are either brainwashed or brain DEAD. If you have no issues with the PNAC, then what the hell is all this rhetoric about me being a paranoid conspiracy theorist for suggesting something so sensible? Paranoid? Look in the mirror.
Regarding the 9/11 investigations, for starters, how did they manage to get all “those people”, all millions of us, who believe that a thorough investigation of the events, anomalies and accountability of job fulfillment from our “leaders”, all of the people whom you have so generously generalized and dismissed as [idiots with an ulterior agenda]...how did they manage to get all of us on the one talk show you saw? I wasn’t contacted for that(??) I didn’t even see that show. It must have been quite an event. BTW, 400+ familes, I believe that is a rather significant percentage, rather than the very few you would assert, are sadly having to resort to the courts to get any cooperation from, let alone answers to highly relevant questions from our leaders charged with our nation’s security on 9/11. That you, or anyone else inexplicably attached to protecting ANYONE from accountability- would suggest that everyday Americans, let alone families of the victims of that tragedy- are attempting to further an agenda other than getting answers that WE ALL deserve…is too freaking wacked-out for words. What the hell motivates you? It boggles the mind to even try to imagine what you must tell yourself to NOT want to know everything you can about HOW that tragedy occurred and WHO at every position charged with preventing that (of which there are many) was NOT doing their job and WHY it would be in ANY WAY unusual that an investigation would continue until all those questions were answered and anyone/everyone (ir)responsible held accountable. HOW do you meld this in your mind into a vast conspiracy theory?
Scott, like I’ve said to 6Gun, I’m not giving any more energy to the downward spiral of assumptions and assaults you attempt to suck anyone who asks questions or has an opinion you don’t like into.
Sadly, it seems you can find plenty of people who will (as you say) cover their ears and chant la,la, la, or even better “left-wing, conspiracy wackos” to drown out any questions which may be embarrassing or uncomfortable for this administration to answer. Frighteningly, for many in this country, ignorance is still (temporarily) bliss.
Keillor’s a Democrat?
——-Original Message——-
From: Evan Coyne Maloney [mailto:ecm@brain-terminal.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 2:10 PM
Subject: >bt: Brainwashing 101
Yesterday, I released a new video analyzing political correctness on
college campuses. If you’d like to see the video, you can find a link
to it here:
http://brain-terminal.com/video/brainwashing-101.html
A description of the video, “Brainwashing 101”, appears below. It’s
a bit of a departure from my previous work, and at 46 minutes, it’s
quite a bit longer, too. It will be premiering at a film festival in
Dallas, TX this upcoming weekend. You can find more information
about the film festival here:
http://afrfilmfestival.com/
Brainwashing 101 will be shown in the 3:00PM-5:30PM block on Saturday,
September 11th. If you decide to come, please stop by and say hi.
I’ve already gotten my first review, from Jonathan V. Last, the
online editor of the Weekly Standard, who wrote about it on
his website “Galley Slaves”. Jonathan says Brainwashing 101 is
“as funny and incisive as [Evan’s] shorts are, but much, much more
devastating.” The full review is here:
http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2004/09/brainwashing-101.html
I know from your e-mails that many of you were hoping for video reports
from the Democratic Convention in Boston and/or the Republican
Convention here in NYC. Unfortunately, I did not have time for either.
I’ve been editing this film since the beginning of June, and I just
barely finished it in time for the film festival. I hope you enjoy it.
Take care,
Evan
—-
Brainwashing 101
————————
Today, many American college campuses are dominated by the ideology of
political correctness. According to the tenets of political correctness,
the United States is the source of all the world’s troubles, capitalism
is evil, and people’s biological heritage makes them either “oppressors”
or “victims”. Political correctness does not tolerate dissent, so
students who disagree with the ideology are often punished. Tools like
speech codes are used by school administrators to enforce thought
conformity. At Cal Poly, one student endured a Kafkaesque disciplinary
ordeal that lasted more than a year and ended up in federal court—just
for posting a flyer announcing an upcoming event! Welcome to the world
of higher education today, where universities seem more intent on
teaching students what to think than how to think.
During the past year, I’ve been researching political correctness and
traveling around the country talking with students, faculty and
administrators. What I knew first-hand to be a problem when I was in
college a decade ago has only gotten worse. Much worse. Political
correctness is now a grotesque parody of itself, but as you can imagine,
the students affected aren’t laughing. Neither are the parents and
alumni whose money is used to prop up this system. Taxpayers have a
stake in this, too. All public universities are funded by tax money, and
almost every private university in the country is subsidized by
taxpayers in the form of government grants and tax breaks.
Chances are, if you’re an American, your money is being used to finance
higher education. You have a right to know what’s happening on our
campuses. You have a right to know how your money’s being spent.
On The Fence Films
—————————
A year ago today, I was sitting in a car staking out Michael Moore,
hoping to interview him about the documentary film business. Not only
did I manage to get the interview, but I found Moore to be surprisingly
encouraging to people like me who want to make films from a different
perspective. Shortly after I posted the resulting video—entitled
Michael Moore’s Call to Arms—Stuart Browning contacted me. Stuart is an
entrepreneur who started the software company Embarcadero Technologies.
In 2000, when Embarcadero went public, it was the most successful IPO of
the year, eclipsing even the much-hyped Krispy Kreme.
After seeing the Moore interview—which contained a not-so-veiled plea
for financing—Stuart wanted to know if I had any ideas for a
feature-length documentary. I did: even before I posted my very first
video on this site, I wanted to show the world the current state of
higher education.
Stuart liked the idea, but he wanted a second opinion. He called on
Blaine Greenberg, an attorney and 23-year veteran of the entertainment
industry. During his career, Blaine has represented major motion picture
studios, record labels, and celebrities like Angelina Jolie, James
Farentino, Joe Theismann and Vanna White. With that much industry
experience, Blaine has undoubtedly seen his share of bad ideas. Stuart
fully expected Blaine to talk him out of it. But instead, Blaine wanted
to be involved.
So, in the fall of 2003, the three of us formed On The Fence Films LLC,
the production company that would handle making the film.
The Long-Term Goal
—————————
Since then, we’ve logged thousands of miles, visited around a dozen
campuses, and interviewed scores of people. We still have many more
hours of footage to shoot, so we’ll be traveling all throughout this new
school year.
Our ultimate goal is to release a feature-length film in 2005. In order
to be successful, we’ll need to find distribution for our film.
Unfortunately, people in the film business generally don’t see the world
the way we do, and we know that’ll work against us. (Just ask Mel
Gibson.)
We’re releasing Brainwashing 101 now because we hope it’ll help us show
distributors that there’s an audience for this type of documentary.
Power to the People!
——————————
Since we don’t have a big marketing budget, our only option is a
grassroots campaign. That’s where the Internet comes in. Having watched
the rise of the populist new media—in the form of blogs—I truly
believe that we can achieve our objectives online. Of course, a
word-of-mouth campaign only works when there’s something interesting for
those mouths to talk about. We believe Brainwashing 101 is worth talking
about, but then again, it’s our film, so you might expect us to say
that!
In the end, you will decide. And if you decide that our film is an
important project, if you decide that other people should see what’s
happening on our campuses, then you can make a difference. You can make
a difference by e-mailing your friends. You can make a difference by
writing about the film on your blog. You can make a difference by
talking about the film in online message boards.
This is a remarkable opportunity for online media to flex its muscles
once again and show the traditional media—the media that’s virtually
ignored this story for decades—that there’s a new sheriff in town. We
hope you’ll help us get the story out.
———————————————————————————————————
www.brain-terminal.com
———————————————————————————————————
Wow. This really impressed me, and not just because before I read this I had no idea what Pithecanthropus was. It is very refreshing to hear this point of view (which I think is dead on) going to a private Catholic college in PA. It seems to me that too many young voters have been deceived by the very “Lamborghini libertarians” that Keillor is describing. It is very sad to think that the lies of this administration will go on to breed more of the type of people mentioned in this article. Hopefully we can stop this process from continuing on election day.
Speaking of Leftist mendacity, check out the latest news that CBS is floating forged Bush Nat Guard payback docs after the Kerry Swift Boat revelations wrecked old Lurch Kerry’s convention bounce:
http://www.powerlineblog.com
Go to The Sixty First Minute.
Apparently somebody at or near CBS ginned up docs on a modern word processor, aged them, and passed them off—thru the White House, no less—as originals from the Seventies.
Can’t win on points, so you try winning by any means, huh Leftists? I keep saying you’re liars and you keep proving it.
My, how far this conversation has drifted from anything productive and sensible. Here in the microcosm of sniping at each other we see the conflicts of the larger society. Everybody wants to have their own benefit at someone else’s expense.
And it is true that “you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, you cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer, you cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred, ...”
The Democrats and Republicans are like two vultures tearing at the body of their victim, and the only difference of opinion between them is how much each gets. The rights of the individual, for which the American Constitution was created, have been well-nigh obliterated in the public mind. Only one political party is dedicated to the individual: the Libertarians. Check them out here: http://www.lp.org
How can you get this covered on all network and cable news outlets? It gone right to the heart of the problem.
Kim, you asked some questions. They were answered. You didn’t like the answers so you got snotty. I am no way obligated to fashion answers that you find satisfactory. You’re like every other liberal that pulls the John Kerry “bring it on” routine, and then when it is brought on, you go full tilt into whine mode.
And as I read your last post I was reminded of the psychological term “projection”.
From Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate:
Projection - The attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially the externalization of blame, guilt, responsibility as a defense against anxiety.
Now, if you want to argue any further, you’ll have to find someone else to argue with. I have other things I must do this afternoon.
Its been a long time since anything good happened to this country. Even though I never voted for him, I miss Bill Clinton. GW is bad luck. Thanks Garrison for telling it like I feel.
“Swift Blog Activists for Truth, Honesty and a Woman’s Right Not To Be Harassed Anywhere. “
I thought both the old-timers on this blog and the newcomers would be enlightened by a series of messages between me and inthesetimes.com that have occurred over the past six hours. As some of you will remember, someone (using my name) posted a number of very crude and criminally sexist messages on this thread last night. The following memos indicate my message to inthesetimes.com this morning regarding this problem and their very swift and appropriate response.
All of us deserve the freedom to speak our minds and hearts without fear of harassment or criminal misrepresentation of our opinions and ourselves. I hope we have heard the last from “Scott” (though probably not). However, we all owe inthesetimes.com a great deal for providing this most enlightening forum and I hope the rest of you will get a subscription too. It is the least I can do. Except, that is, to elect Kerry/Edwards and keep speech free in the USA. Run the rascals out of office and lock up their criminally vulgar friends. Peace, out.
——————-
On Sep 9, 2004, at 9:56 AM, Bernie Ellis wrote:
Date: September 9, 2004
To: In These Times Editor/Internet Security Person
From: Bernie Ellis
Subject: A Serious Problem with Internet Security on the “Lake Wobegon” Blog
First of all, I want to thank you folks for publishing the Garrison Keillor “We’re Not In Lake Wobegon Anymore” article. The article was superb and the blog that has grown up from it is pretty amazing. It now has over 30 pages of comments, and much of the dialogue has been a post-graduate course in our varying political philosophies,
and the obvious force behind those beliefs. I have been one of the very happy and frequent bloggers and have certainly enjoyed the unfiltered interchange which, though sometimes heated and
scatalogical, has nonetheless been worth every minute.
That is, until last night, when something very creepy happened. After about a day of my not posting anything, I went on-line and posted a
comment at 8:31 pm. Immediately after I posted, someone came on using my name (at 8:37 pm) and posted a very sexist, criminally aggressive and inappropriate comment aimed at one of the
female bloggers. That person then re-posted using my name at 8:56 pm, 9:04 pm, 9:17 pm and 10:14 pm. (In between those posts, I re-posted myself twice to let the blog know that someone else was using my name. And no one else has access to my home computer, so this imposter has to be using another computer to post from.)
Obviously, this is very distressing and, as far as I can tell, it is the only instance of this false posting and identity theft happening throughout the entire 30+ page thread. I am very concerned
about this obvious identify theft and I expect you folks would be concerned to know that this is possible on the blogs you establish on your web-site. (However, given the heat of the blog and the character of some of the more rabid Bush-lovers on it, nothing would surprise
me when it comes to “dirty tricks” from that bunch.)
So I am writing to request three things:
1) Please call me at home to discuss this matter as soon as possible.
2) Please check the IP, email and hometown information you have that comes in with the postings to this blog to see if you can tell who
posted those messages using my name. My guess is that they came from someone who has been posting already on the blog so hopefully you can
match up the IP, email and hometown addresses and identify the imposter….
3) If you are able to identify the identity of the false poster who is using my name, would you please jump into the thread and post a notice (from inthesetimes.com) on the thread indicating who the false poster is. I don’t want his real name to be posted, but it would be nice for the other readers to know who the nickname of the false poster is. If you find that the false posts were from an IP, email or hometown address that has not appeared among the prior posters to the
blog, you could also say that in your note.
Thanks kindly for doing this. I guess I should be flattered that someone has done this (we must be touching a lot of raw nerves among the Bushies) but it is more than a bit creepy and is very counter to the free exchange of ideas (and gleefully partisan insults) that your blog has allowed us to enjoy. Now, I’m going on-line to subscribe to your magazine—you are really a breath of fresh air.
———-
Seamus Holman (In These Times) wrote back:
I have traced this person’s ip address: 216.244.12.99 to Pasedena. I can contact the ISP and attempt to locate the home address if you
would like. They also posted posing as “Scott”. Unfortunately, there was no valid email address used. I have banned them from future postings
on our site. I will also remove the offensive postings from the site.
Best, Seamus
Associate Art Director/Webmaster
In These Times
2040 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Chicago, IL 60647
(773) 772-0100 x225
———-
Subject: Re: Web Contact—Pretty creepy security breach on the Garrison Keillor blog
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:58:59 -0500
From: Bernie Ellis <tracevu@bellsouth.net>
To: Seamus Holman <seamus@inthesetimes.com>,
Seamus,
Thanks so much for your swift response to my request. I appreciate your removing “Scott” from access to the blog. Good riddance. Given the very crude and aggressively criminal comments that he posted under my name last night, I hope you won’t mind that I go online to the blog and let the other readers know what you have let me know. I think that all of them—regardless of which side of the political chasm they are on—should know the truth about the one real sicko who has been in our midst. Maybe that will help them weigh the other comments he has foisted on us for the past week. I’ll call this post the “Swift Blog Activists for Truth, Honesty and a Woman’s Right Not To Be Harassed Anywhere. “
Thanks kindly. If you would not mind, I would also appreciate your posting a message about your attitudes towards “Scott’s” actions and the
importance of a free (and safe) place to dialogue together, regardless of how red (or blue) we get in the face doing it.
Thanks again to www.inthesetimes.com for publishing Garrison’s obviously provocative piece and the space for all of us to defend aggressively and without censorship our points of view and—through that process—our democracy. Many of us owe you a new subscription—that’s the least we can do for the public service you have provided.
Sincerely,
The Real Bernie Ellis
—————————————-
So folks, that’s that about that. While we may get more pornographic poseurs on our blog and “Scott” can certainly find another computer (and a new name) to continue to spew his bile, at least we’ve shined the light of day (and truth) on that toad-stool once. As for me, I plan to post one more time only, later today. For the long-time readers, you’ll know me when you “see” me. By now, all of you know that I can’t say anything in 100 words when 2,000 will do. For now, peace (and quiet) out.
That’s my take on Kimberly too, Scott. You’re far more the gentleman than I, but the point is made: If you refuse to take adult responsibility, you’re naturally going to find the Democrat/Socialist/Leftwing side of the street far more attractive.
If you want to steal wealth legally…become a Socialist Democrat.
If you want to blame others officially, become a dependent, Big Brother Leftist.
If you want to make baseless accusations, become a Democrat shill.
If you enjoy strawmen, deceit, ad hominem, and non starters, become a sound-bite Liberal…and get a job at Big Media: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html
And if all of this strikes you as healthy, normal behavior, consider yourself mentally ill.
Today’s Democrat Party, Keillor, is built on fantasies and emotions and conspiracy and stereotypes. And they, like Kim, LOVE you!
It has come to our attention that a reader in these forums has pretended to be “Scott” and “Bernie Ellis”. We have recorded their IP address and restricted access to their account. However, since this user is using a dial up connection from Earthlink in Pasedena, they will regain access to our site when Earthlink gives out a new IP address to this account.
We take fraudulent postings seriously at In These Times, as they severly diminish the quality of discussions. We also prefer to maintain an open forum for discussion. Please be respectful of our other readers. We have not taken action yet for this account, but please be aware that we can track down “anonymous” postings and will report further abuse to the offending ISP.
Thanks for your understanding,
Seamus Holman
ITT Webmaster
Joanne Roush wrote:
“One from the Telegraph that states that a Muslim cleric is having his residency status reevaluated by British authorities based on extremist statements to his congregation which may or may not be considered inciteful.”
My reason for linking the article was to point to the murderous mindset of a not untypical radical mullah:
===
“If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.
“As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay.”
Mr Mohammed, 44, who lives in Edmonton, north London, but is originally from Syria, also claimed that the Chechen rebels were not responsible for the deaths of more than 350 people - at least half of them children - who are so far known to have died in Beslan.
“The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians,” he said.
===
Although most of the kids were shot in the back. It’s beyond belief.
You have paraphrased the article to make it seem that “[he is] having his residency status reevaluated by British authorities based on extremist statements to his congregation which may or may not be considered inciteful.” Where does it say that?
In fact the article only says, “The father of seven came to Britain in 1985 after being deported from Saudi Arabia because of his membership of a banned group. He has since been given leave by the Home Office to remain in Britain for five years but the Government is reviewing his status.”
“Reviewing his status” is the absolute minimum comment the British government could make to the press!
His conference is to celebrate the Anniversary of 9/11. It will include Bin Laden video and a lecture dedicated to dead Al Qaeda leaders:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1300050,00.html
I agree with some of these thoughts/comments. I also disagree with some of them. The problem is that Kerry is not the answer. I am confident that what ever Bush has done wrong, Kerry will only do other things that are far worse. So, for this election we really only have one choice, and that is to ask Bush to move the country in a better direction. I for one want/will give him that opportunity.
Well, well, well 6Pack - sounds like your friend Scotty was a very naughty boy last night. Shall we expect the same juvenile antics from you?
I join Bernie in asking all you queasy Republicans to consider that you’re known by the company you keep. Am I feeing superior to Scott? You bet. He is a miscreant and I think his words have made it clear that he is not a Christian, not a gentleman, and not even particularly bright though he has his moments of cleverness.
If you feel like rising above this level, join us. Join Bernie, Lyle, Jimboy, Kim, and best of all, Grandma. We will embrace you with open arms, and we can work together with humor and comity. Don’t get hung up on Garrison’s words or those of others spoken, out of their pain and genuine alarm for the health of our democracy. We are all worn and worried, but we still have hope and faith and we still believe that right makes might, not the other way around. Join us.
As for you 6Gun, and perhaps less so for you, Brooks - thank you for representing the true face of the Repubican Party. Your Everest-ike level of self esteem, which is a characteristic of most bullies, conceals your sociopathological personality traits from no one but yourselves. It has been a pleasure watching you strip naked in front of this large audience.
Keep your family names to yourself Joanne.
RE:
Joanne Roush just responded to the entry you subscribed to at In These
Times.
As for you ... Brooks - thank you for
representing the true face of the Repubican Party. Your
Everest-ike level of
self esteem, which is a characteristic of most bullies, conceals your
sociopathological personality traits from no one but
yourselves. It has
been a pleasure watching you strip naked in front of this
large audience.
Meaning what, exactly, Brooks? I’m used to getting more detail from you.
Don’t do it Jimboy,don’t go to the dictionary.It’s a trap.I fell for that ploy and was severely chastised for the word “sovereign”.A word supplied by the fiend that is trying to trap you.Just walk away from the trap,Jimboy.Ed P.
MN - Pardon me, but the local MP stated in the article that it sounded like incitement, which I assumed was a legal term, and that he was reporting the imam to Scotand Yard. My point remains, that the British authorities are investigating and I think your level of hysteria is out of proportion to the situation which so far consists of a Muslim gassing away in much the same fashion as many of the Republicans on this blog.
But you won’t see that. Now you’ll probably construe that what I am saying is in some way meant to excuse the actions of the perpetrators of the criminal acts in Chechnya. I will emphasize most strenuously that is not the case.
Two days ago I stated that I felt it was unfortunate that this incident would inevitably be used as a political football to score cheap points. The bodies of the innocent victims of this slaughter are barely cool, the ruins still smoking most likely. Do you think they care what you or I think, or who did what to whom? Do you think they want their deaths used to score a point in a pointless political argument? I don’t. Do you think the suffering in Chechnya is ending now, or is it just beginning to intensify? How many more children should die, eh? Putin is reportedly outraged and determined to avenge this affront to his image as the great and powerful Oz of Russia. Force will be brought to bear, you can be sure of that. More innocents will die for the cause. Remind me again…what is that cause?
Have you ever asked yourself what these people are fighting for? Here in the USA we’ve been told that Islamic fanatics hate us for our freedoms. Why do they hate Russians? For their freedoms? It’s all bullshit, MN.
The British imam’s words were prophetic in terms of children and women dying in the crossfire. They always do. Here in the US we just call it collateral damage. That’s a nice, tidy term for the blood and breath of innocent children and adults. You can’t have it both ways, MN. You can’t seek violent solutions to things that scare you unless you are willing to accept all the violence. There is no picking and choosing. You’re in or you’re out. My advice to you is to pluck up your courage, and then take the nearest exit. Work for peaceful resolution to conflict. It’s what everybody in the world wants, but only a few will stand for.
Joanne/Phoebe, you mendacious, nasty old political derelict. I’m actually laughing aloud as I type this; the mental image of Phoebe and JIMSURFBOY and precious Kimberly as the Left’s frontline against all that is wrong and unfair is just killing me over here. What a team. You go, boy.
Like I said before, not an ounce of substance, just appeals to somebody—anybody!—to put out your flames. Sounds like you need a Big Brother, dear.
Brooks, what can one say? The sheer falsehood and victimizing arrogance of the Left is what passes for their discourse these days, and when outed, they just amp it up…to Keillor-like charicatures of reality. It all fits.
Phoebes self-impalement reminds me of Cal Poly’s recent utter humiliation at its own hands when it attempted to railroad its own student for daring to attempt free speech on campus. Blackest mendacity. Wall-to-wall imagery and avoidance and spin. It’s positively Martian what passes for enlightenment on the Left these days!
Phoebes, sadly, now you remind me of Kim: Intractably dishonest, supremely arrogant, and completely unreachable out there in your own private Idaho. Quite pathological in your deceit. Proud?
Brooks, I beg to differ on the importance of the separtion of Church and State and to whom it applied. Yes the term “sects” was mostly used to talk about the conflicts between the Protestant Christian sects, not even between Catholic and Protestant.
As Jefferson wrote in his autobiography about Virginias religous freedom declaration, “The restoration of the rights of conscience relieved the people from taxation for the support of a religion not theirs; for the establishment was truly of the religion of the rich, the dissenting sects being entirely composed of the less wealthy people.”
The rich sect he was referring to was the Anglican Church of Virginia which forced the people of all other sects such as Quakers and Presbyterians as well as other religions to pay the Parish tax to support the Anglican minister and the parish maintenance costs.
However, Jefferson explicitly stated that religious freedom applied “within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination” This was the context for the Constitution’s First Amendment.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffauto.htm
Joanne wrote: “Based on the de facto evidence of no major attacks on a par even with Madrid in either Germany or France, is it unreasonable to assume that both have made a successful effort to interdict such activity within their borders?”
The answer is no. Nothing can ever be deduced by the absence of an occurance. It reminds me of the people who wear aluminum foil deflector beanies and give testimony that their beanie works because since they started wearing it they haven’t had any attempts at mind control. All claims that the Department of Homeland Security is working because there have been no terrorist attacks have the same testimonial value.
Gregory Wonderwheel - In other words, your answer is actually *yes*, it is unreasonable to assume that the French and Germans have been successfully interdicting terrorist activities within their borders. N’est pas?
Now, that is actually the answer I was looking for, particularly when you extended the logic to our own Department of Homeland Security. It seems to me that some would like to apply a different set of standards to a similar set of facts. I believe we are constantly being told by Tom Ridge and others that the efforts of President Bush himself have made us safer, as indicated by the frequent alarms and the lack of attacks. There seems to be general agreement among many Republicans that this is true. On the other hand, many of those same Republicans would have us question whether the French and Germans are actually on board in the fight on terrorism. Geoff (who has not so far identified himself in terms of political allegiance) has gone so far as to cite their “truculence” as evidence that they may not performing their duties in this regard as diilgently as we would like. So, I was trying to discover if he would apply the same standard to evaluating their efforts as has apparently been applied in evaluating the efforts of our current leadership.
I agree that aluminum foil hats have no proven efficacy in preventing mind control. But that’s another discussion entirely - mind control, that is.
Gregory,
A plain reading of Jay’s Federalist #2 refutes your position. “. . .Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people
descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
The concept of “one united people…professing the same religion” does not translate into the broad conception of many different religions from Jefferson’s autobiography written some 33 years after the Federalist papers were written contemporaneously with the formation of the Constitution. Jefferson’s recollection is more consistent with the secular moralism he expressed in his “Jefferson Bible” and it smacks of a post hoc ergo propter hoc - an after the fact justification, and in this case, a revisionism to boot.
I don’t have a problem with the expansive direction that religious freedom ultimately took in America. Let’s face it though, not all religions began at the same time, not all can claim the same degree of metaphysical authority, and some have a good deal more age on them than others. While different religions may subjectively satisfy different people to a similar degree, an objective comparison of religions is going to reveal many substantive differences that go to authenticity - which is why the subject is generally avoided in polite company.
It serves no reasonable purpose to tack on legitimacy to alternative religions by revising their origins in this country. Some people - in my observation mainly on the left - seem to have a real need to do this. It’s a fools errand in my view.
Brooks, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing the Federalist Papers from the Constitution. Who voted on the Federalist Papers? My understanding is that they were a series of articles produced to builld support for the Constitution, but it was the Constitution that was adopted. If one views the FP as a successful marketing campaign for the US Constitution, isn’t it fair to expect that potentially contentious issues would have been framed in a way that would appeal to the contemporary interests of their audience? This is what a good PR/marketing campaign does if it is to succeed. I’m not belittlling the FP or implying that they do not contain a great deal of enduring wisdom. But they are not the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, which was adopted by the duly elected and/or appointed representatives of the American people.
Joanne,
I find it incredibly disturbing that the likes of Scott, and 6Pack and Robert, who interestingly continue to lob the most disparaging labels, generalizations, assumptions and outright character assassinations, avoid any direct and personal statements of conviction regarding an issue, re-write their own meaning to any comments they don’t like…althewhile accusing everyone else of doing the same, seem to make up the (m)asses who support the current administration.
The right-wing-nuts on the board have already labeled me, so the everyone in the world MUST believe it to be true…or they’d be with me in conspiracy, no doubt…And we all know that no matter how a liberal brings up an issue and seeks to engage others in intelligent, solution-oriented discussion, it’s “whining”.
I have an uncle that has always been one of my favorite relatives. He is generally witty, easy-going and likeable. In his younger years, he protested the Vietnam War, drove a micro-bus, I’m sure if Birkenstocks were around them,he’d have sported a pair, and even lived for a while on a commune in Hawaii. Even as he got older, got married and started a family, he remainded pretty open-minded, read a variety of sources, maintained friends from diverse cultures, etc. During the last roughly 5 years, he became a Republican. All I can tell you is that it has not resulted in him becoming a kinder-gentler man. A man who was once fairly well-informed and welcomed dialogue and debate on a myriad of subjects, now rants (and I don’t mean that euphemistically, like “whining”) rhetoric from rabid, right-wing talk shows. He interrupts others, can’t hear anything but what he thinks is his own opinion (which is parroted directly from the pundits), refuses to elaborate on any positions he states on an issue (when questioned, you’ll never guess what he does…yep, he goes into all the usual diversions), his relativism is as far-reaching as a Fox News flash, and he lumps large segments of our society into derrogatory dismissals. He, of course, regurgitates all the rhetoric that we’ve read here about the assumed associations and lacking intelligence of anyone who is not unquestioningly endorsing Bush. I am truly not exaggerating when I say he is scarcely the same person. His need to be right, or rather “Right,” is more important than courtesy to others and respect for their views, family members’ feelings, or even friendships, and it totally precludes his ability to even hear, let alone investigate any evidence that contradicts the gospel of his GOP gurus. Closed-minded would be the understatement of the election year.
He appears to have aged tremendously since his alignment with fundamental conservativism. He is angry, bitter against entire groups of human beings because “They’re all like that, ya know”, he’s exclusive, intolerant, absolutely ignorant of anything unreported on Fox News or Right-Wing Radio and arrogant to the point where I am honestly embarrassed for him. His relationships with others have become cordial and superficial. People know they’re walking through a mine-field with him and one never knows when he may be on an incendiary rant over whomever or whatever the Republican propaganda machine has told him to be mad about on any given day.
I don’t have a problem with people having views that differ from mine…and/or anyone else’s. In fact, I am fundamentally a proponent of free-thought and personal accountability.
However, the rhetoric on the far right is deeply disturbing in its unprecendented hate-mongering. It is “Hatriotism” in its most horrific form. I’m certainly not suggesting that there aren’t such individuals under any political banner.
However, it seems abundantly evident that many, if not most of these positions are openly promoted by right-wing political pundits. How do otherwise decent people, many who have at least a vague commitment to being positive role models to their children, particularly those who also claim to place a relationship with God at the top of their ideals, buy into such an ugly, nasty, narrow-minded mentality and movement? For starters, FEAR. Fear of being (God forbid) diffent, individual, un-popular, un-patriotic (God forbid, again)or worse…DEAD. If you’re not with “US”, as we’ve been told by the rabid right, you’re with the “terrist” and YOU will be personally responsible (like we were, oops, I forgot, that’s irrelevant) for the next “terrist” attack. Fear is among the most easily manipulable states of human consciousness, and (as a marketing excecutive) I must give props to the GOP’s for their mastery of manipulation of the minds of the (m)asses.
My hope is that we’re at the far right-side swing of the pendulum, and the over-the-top fanatacism will demand a return to center as a force of natural balance. Maybe enough people have still not been lulled into a stupor by their televisions, or blinded in a fog of fear- to see what’s happening in our nation with the current band of bullies at the helm, and get out and vote, EVEN if it is for an ABB ticket.
Good evening Brook,
I haven’t had a chance to re-read all of what you have enlightened me with but I am concerned with the blanket statement that all were united. <y reading shows Madison with no conventional sense of Christianity as he wrote in 1785 in his Memorial and REmonstrance against Religious Assessments:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the layity; in both superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
“What influence, in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of teh civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of teh liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perputrate it, needs them not.” Pretty clear he wasn’t into Christianity in any sense of the word.
Franklin was a Deist. As was Washington.Adams was a Unitrian. Thomas Paine stated, ” My own mind is my church.” Althought not a Deist he held Deist beliefs. Jefferson also had his own religion. It would appear the most concentrated grouping was found in FreeMasonary. Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonary. I suspefct some others may have been Christians but it would appear that most if not all of the major players in our country’s founding were not.
Given this aspect I would not be able to support a Christian beginning for America.
I think Joanne may still deny her botched demand to prove the negative.
Had Spain not visibly protested a firm government and apparently capitulated in the Presidential election immediately following Madrid, was not France and the rest of the EC approaching populations 50% non-native, and had not Russia suffered as it has recently, there would still be no reason to believe Europe had a focus on substantially preventing terrorism. The evidence is lacking and so there are questions whether the French and Germans are actually on board.
Meanwhile, even judged by the constant clamor from the US Left against the Patriot Act and personal rights and Afghanistan/Iraq and Pax Americana, it’s clear the US does have real intentions to slow domestic and international terrorism.
By the evidence, it may very well be unreasonable to assume that the French and Germans have been successfully interdicting terrorist activities, if by this we mean terrorist preparations within their borders that continue to buildup for more Madrids and more Russias, which continue to occur. Until the thing detonates, it’s not death, but it is still terrorism.
This isn’t actually the answer you were looking for, but it does fit the evidence.
Well, Kim, about substantive posts, that’s simply not true, and the record shows it, acrimony, sarcasm and all. Seriously, earnestly; is there any remaining reason to attempt to debate you accross the table when you’ve been shown to have denied numerous generous, even overboard attempts to answer you with detail and reason?
You keep showing up looking for different answers and when they naturally don’t come, you act hurt and blame others.
Let me ask you another question. This time perhaps you’ll have the respect to answer directly:
What is it you actually want?
If you want to use just about every logical fallacy and personal victimization I think you know what you’ll get, at least from me. If you want to ignore reason, ditto. If you want to martyr yourself for no cause other than your own ego, be my guest. But don’t accuse me, or for that matter, Scott, of not stooping so low as to at least try and answer your chiding demands.
Brook,
On behalf of all honorably discharged veterans and all thos men and women currently serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan and in the other 130 foreign countries America has a military presence I ask for an apology for the insensitive posting earlier regarding the article and link to a website www.scrabbleface.com. I don;t know if you have ever served your country or if you intend to in the future but I find this posting beyond tasteless. If you wish to have any of us agree with what you have to say then you need to show a little respect to a group of people who have made it possible for you through their blood, tears, sweat and separation from their loved ones. You and 6gun have several times told people if they didn’t like it here to leave well sir you have not earned that right to ask anyone to leave. You have not sacrificed one breath for this Great Land. I for one resent your tone and your arrogance.
Seems to be more of like minded people out there.
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
> < www.Misleader.org >
> ===============================
>
> BUSH ATTACKED NAT’L GUARD SERVICE OF OTHERS
>
> The White House is currently attacking those who raise questions about
> President Bush’s National Guard record. They say the questions about
> Bush’s
> failure to fulfill his commitment are “dirty politics.”[1] Yet a look
> at the
> record shows that it was President George H.W. Bush - and his top
> campaign
> strategist George W. Bush - who tried to smear the National Guard and
> military record of their opponents.
>
> As reported in the August 23, 1988 Los Angeles Times, then Vice
> President
> George H.W. Bush’s campaign co-chairman John Sununu went on national
> television to impugn an opponent’s dealings with the National Guard
> during
> Vietnam. Sununu specifically claimed Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) had
> improperly helped get his son into the Texas National Guard during
> Vietnam.
> Bentsen’s son served in the very same National Guard unit at the very
> same
> time as George W. Bush. The Bush campaign’s attacks came just days
> after
> Bush’s allies on Capitol Hill launched a vicious attack on Gov. Michael
> Dukakis (D-MA) for receiving a draft deferment during the Korean
> War.[2]
>
> At the time of the coordinated attack, George W. Bush was serving as a
> senior adviser to his father’s campaign.[3]
>
>
> Sources:
>
> 1. “New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ,” CBS2Chicago.com,
> 9/08/04,
> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1227278&l=54246.
> 2. “Report that Bentsen Got Son into National Guard Also Denied;
> Dukakis
> Angry about Charge of Avoiding Korean War,” Los Angeles Times, 8/23/88.
> 3. GeorgeWBush.com, 9/04,
> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1227278&l=54247.
>
>
> Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush administration distortion.
> »
Mr. Keillor demonstrates a wonderful grasp of the English language, and an incredibly tenuous acquaintance with reality. Is it not the USA that people are selling kidneys to immigrate? One of the greatest benefits of living in the USA is that everyone has the right to leave. They also have the right to work toward change. Although I’d be the first to admit that George W. is no Ronald Reagan (who seems to evade mention here), but the ramblings of a few paranoid conspiracy-mongers fall far short of denting my love for this country.
Thanks, and I genuinely hope everyone commenting here is registered to vote and exercises that right this November.
BTW, our country WAS started by some very angry people, Mr. Keillor.
Googe
[JR]
“On the other hand, many of those same Republicans would have us question whether the French and Germans are actually on board in the fight on terrorism. Geoff (who has not so far identified himself in terms of political allegiance) has gone so far as to cite their “truculence” as evidence that they may not performing their duties in this regard as diilgently as we would like. So, I was trying to discover if he would apply the same standard to evaluating their efforts as has apparently been applied in evaluating the efforts of our current leadership.”
[GR]
Perhaps in a way it’s a compliment to my endeavoring not to sound too partisan on this blog that a perfectly intelligent poster like Joanne might be under the impression that I have not yet identified my political allegiance <G>.
In fact, on Page 16 of this blog, I explained that I have been undecided for most of this cycle, but that recently I have been leaning to Kerry, even though I am still open to some persuasion one way or the other.
The reason why I am currently leaning to Kerry is bound up with my perception of a certain degree of detachment toward the War on Terror on the part of France and Germany. I simply sense that the nonappearance—so far—of WMDs in Iraq has made France and Germany—and perhaps some other needed industrialized democracies to this effort as well—too distant toward both Bush and toward the War on Terror in general.
I don’t know for sure whether or not this attitude has adversely impacted the full effectiveness of their vigilance in terms of intelligence, etc. But I remain concerned that it might in the long term.
My concern has led to a perception on my part that Bush may no longer be able to be the person who successfully changes the general European attitude on the continent.
Since I still regard a closer working relationship with Continental Europe as essential to ultimate success in the eventual phasing out of the strength of Al Qaeda, and in the depletion of their oxygen, so to speak, in the coming decades, I am now ready to look to Kerry as someone who, IMO, may, at present, be better equipped to establish a closer working relationship with all industrialized democracies of the Free World, including those of Continental Europe, than Bush would be.
MN, an articulate supporter of Bush, has suggested on this forum that I may be wrong: Kerry may be no better than Bush at changing what I view as Continental Europe’s _possibly_ truculent attitude today.
Personally, I recognize that some believe that Bush has no one but himself to blame for Europe’s current attitude, while others believe their attitude was already built into the situation and inevitable. I concede there are times when I have been toying with the former idea, but ultimately, however and why that attitude was generated is less important, IMO, than deciding on the best way to overcome it today and in the future.
Our colloquy—MN’s and mine—now stands at the following point: Whether or not Kerry may or may not be the best man to bring Continental Europe more fully around, whether or not Bush has accumulated too much negative baggage to do this effectively, putting both candidates aside, what then might be the best way to address the apparent truculence in Continental Europe today _in_ _case_ it may lead to tragic carelessness on their part in future?
As to an evaluation of our own vigilance and intelligence, one can be happy that there have been no further attacks thus far (knock wood). And perhaps, there having been no attacks in France or Germany either is also a good sign. Still, as another poster here has (essentially) observed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The other aspect of our homeland policy that brought me up short was the Supreme Court’s surprising admonishment of the Justice Dept.‘s handling of those held at Guantanamo Bay. I admit I was not expecting this at all. It made me take another look at what had seemed at first a reasonable series of precautions. If these precautions were not farsighted enough after all, in terms of their execution and conformity with the Supreme Court’s evident requirements, perhaps the general homeland policy might need a second look as well. I admit this doesn’t necessarily address the effectiveness of maintaining the general safety of America’s cities from further attack. But it does address aspects of day-to-day operations here that may not have been fully vetted by those responsible.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Lyle,
I greatly appreciate what all veterans have done to secure our freedoms. I will, however, not apologize according to your request because no reasonable person in the position of a veteran could construe this bit of scrappleface satire as a slam against veterans in general, or even in particular on account of Kerry’s veteran status. The subject of the satire is Kerry’s Senate record or lack thereof and you misconstrued the piece. Furthermore, I have never invited anyone to leave the forum. You must have me mistaken me for someone else. Finally, I noticed that you have used your veteran status to put other parties down in this forum. I find that to be a curious coincidence.
Sincerely,
Brooks
RE:
Brook,
On behalf of all honorably discharged veterans and all thos men and women
currently serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan and in the other 130 foreign countries America has a
military presence I ask for an apology for the insensitive posting earlier
regarding the article and link to a website www.scrabbleface.com. I don;t
know if you have ever served your country or if you intend to in the future
but I find this posting beyond tasteless. If you wish to have any of us
agree with what you have to say then you need to show a little respect to a
group of people who have made it possible for you through their blood,
tears, sweat and separation from their loved ones. You and 6gun have several
times told people if they didn’t like it here to leave well sir you have
not earned that right to ask anyone to leave. You have not sacrificed one
breath for this Great Land. I for one resent your tone and your arrogance.
Kim, I don’t want to speak for you, but I can’t help but respond briefly to ole Shooting Blanks.
6Gun, I think most (if not all) people writing and reading this thread would appreciate less direct attacks on our opponents. I think it’s eminently fair game to say whatever we want about the policies, practices and behaviors of the candidates we oppose; but continually attacking other posters we disagree with on this thread gets us absolutely nowhere. I am no choir-boy myself on this score, though I have noticed that you “real men” to seem to prefer to call the women disparaging names more than you do me, Lyle, Ed, Michael, Geoff and other men who have responded.
I also notice that you have no women on your side.
Do you let conservative women speak at all, or is that just the price they pay for hanging with conservative men?
As for me, I was taught early on not to hit girls. And one of the first girls I tussled with in grade school taught me that there are several reasons not to do that—including that they can hit back (hard). I think the women posters on this thread have been cogent and persuasive in their arguments, and have tried harder than some of the men (myself included) to state their points without attacking other posters personally. Why—after dominating this thread for so many days now—can’t you show any learning curve at all on this score? Even I tried to “just get along” for a whole day. Why can’t you?
I was also taught to tell the truth, and that means not hiding behind someone else’s identity when I wanted to “talk dirty”. You guys were evidently taught differently, as displayed by your own behavior toward women and Scott’s completely over-the-top behavior last night, which has now been exposed by inthesetimes.com for all to see. Since you’re still defending him, do you condone that behavior? Do you have no substance to your moral foundations, no shame, no judgement regarding the people you choose to associate with—on this thread or off it?
We have been given far too many opportunities to ask that question to you repeatedly to the moral Republicans and Independents who are participating in this thread and reading it without comment. No one seems to want to join the “gang of four” very often (you, Brooks, Scott and Robert). And if inthesetimes was indeed successful in blocking Scott from any further posts (I sure hope so), you’re down to three. So let me put out an appeal for you.
If there are other readers of this thread who agree with your tone, your argumentative style, your non-stop haranguing of the rest of us—let him or her speak now or keep holding their peace. While there certainly may be some who can agree with some of your positions on issues, I doubt that there are very many who would care to align themselves with your total lack of manners.
Of course, you could always visit Scott out in Pasadena, and the two of you could walk hand-in-hand down the street with your Cheney-approved signs overhead that read “The world is going to end on November 3 unless you vote for Bush-Rove/Cheney. Follow us to freedom and salvation in a terrorless world.” Report back, won’t you, on how long the train of followers is.
My daddy always said that I would be judged by the company I keep. You’re still running with Scott—if I were a woman or a man with any breeding at all, that’s just about all I would need to know about you to say, when you approached me on the Pasadena streets with your harangue: “Here’s 50 cents. Call someone who cares.”
This isn’t my last post, but I’m working up to it. Please tell Scott (or should I call him “Bizarro Bernie”) “hi” for me, won’t you. And tell him that inthesetimes.com would be happy to tell us all where he lives.
This article inspired me to write up a quiz.
“Our dearest friends, Garrison Keillor and Ann Coulter, occasionally refer to their political opponents by harsh names. Can you guess which one of them used which names to refer to one or more of their ideological enemies?”
Bush/Cheney; hitting girls; flying solo in a leftwing forum; running with a pervert. See, Bernie, now you’ve gone and faced me with a dilemma.
Either I respond in kind to your tempest in Keillor’s teapot, escalating the stereotype you love to erect so you have something to dislike all over again, or, I ignore this silly partisan gender baiting and appealing to those you hope get your back. I’m capable of the former and happy with the latter.
How about ten autobiographical paragraphs, many based on a partisan strawman? Seen it here before. [wink]
Or I take your implied advice and ignore this place. That would be class. Your call.
Have the girls vote, Bernie. I have much better things to do and I really, sincerely, don’t want to be a bore where minds are so set.
All well and good, what happened to the NY Times?
What about the Washington Post? The papers in Georgia,forexample? No disrespect here to a great mindshowninthese pages, but we’renot in the front row here, print this thing for many to read. May mercy be shown to us all.
I vote for the classy option. Only because, as you’ve made so abundantly clear, the boredom is mutual.
Brooks,
I do apologize for mixing you up with someone else and including you in a posting that should have been in two parts. You are blameless as to telling people to leave the country not the forum. I should have proof read my posting to check for errors.
I have since double checked every posting (over 900) because of this unfortunate accusation. I do stand by what I said in the first part and if you will allow me to explain why perhaps you may see my point.
(2004-09-09)—On a day when new allegations surfaced about George W.
Bush’s National Guard service in 1972, Democrat presidential candidate John
Forbes Kerry officially received his honorable discharge from the U.S.
Senate.
This is the lead to the satire you posted. The reference here is to the allegations that have been made regarding President Bush’s service and subsequent honorable discharge from the military. In light of all the outright lies that have been posted in reference to the “swifties” claims against Kerry regarding the award of any or all service awards. Because the article begins with a new revelation and it regards the President who may be the one in hot water over what is alleged we now are to ignore any discussion on that point and switch immediately by a parody of his opponent and in fact more is made of this in reference to a discharge than of his record or non-record. This casts a cloud on all veterans as to whether in fact their discharges or honorable or were purchased or just plain fabricated. In light of the over 1,000 killed in Iraq alone and the many thousands more wounded and the conflict still going on makes any parody of service to this country by its veterans insensitive.
I do feel I am a reasonable man and if you do not then that is your call. Again I do humbly apologize for including you where you did not belong.
I do value what you have posted in reference to the Constitution and will re-educate myself to see if I am able to come to the same conclusions as soon as I have time.
Sincerely,
Lyle
Joanne Roush wrote:
“One from a blog that offers interpretation and analysis, not news in the sense of reportage of fact. The article you referenced implies a vast Muslim conspiracy has been in place since 1922 to take over the USA. So far they don’t seem to have accomplished a great deal in that arena. Looks like the Crusaders are on top of that effort.”
Actually, Daniel Pipes is a newsmaker and also a journalist with impeccable credentials. It’s better to reference him directly. The particular page I cited contained many ‘facts’ including excerpts of commments by various prominent Islamists in this country. There is more to journalism than the major newspapers and broadcast media.
Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, and a member of the presidentially-appointed board of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He likely will not survive in the latter position if Sen. Kerry is elected, as someone more sensitive (i.e. non-confrontational) would no doubt be appointed.
It’s well worth the time to look around his website:
http://www.danielpipes.org/
Don’t think that he is anti-Muslim. He’s not, in fact he respects and supports moderate Muslims. He is warning us of the dangers of radical jihadi Islamists and their mission.
Some excerpts:
“Calling Islamism the Enemy” (Recent statements from key leaders)
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/300
“Let Iraqis Take Responsibility for Iraq”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/173
“Death to France”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/159
“Faces of Islam”
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/441
Bernie Ellis,
Good going. But rather than shining the light of day on that toadstool, I suggest you have beamed moonlight on the cat turd.
Geoff,
===
[JR]
“<SNIP> What is so fascinating to me is the British experience. I am intrigued by the fact that despite an enormous Muslim population, they also have not experienced a major terrorist event. They certainly can’t be accused of being other than our most vigorous supporter in Iraq.
[GR]
What is your take on that? “
===
[MN]
I would offer Pipes’ view, based on /his/ sources:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/307
===
[GR]
Perhaps, it was vigilant intelligence in Britain’s case as well.
There is also, I gather, a certain impatience and vigilance within the Muslim communities as well. I recall, vividly, that, shortly after 9/11, a British imam exploded with fury to a British reporter:
“I wasn’t born yesterday; neither were most of the members of the congregation here. All of us smelled something was off when two or three interlopers started attending here and bothering my parishioners with all sorts of nonsense, talking violence and seemingly trying to win converts. No one listened to them, being quite exasperated with them instead. I finally had to call Scotland Yard.
“I said, ‘Look, you’ve got to remove these guys. They’re giving us the creeps, and no one here wants them or likes them. I want you to send some people over and simply escort these guys out of here. They’re not welcome.’
“No one came from Scotland Yard. So we’ve had to simply ignore these creeps as best we could, getting more frustrated and exasperated with Scotland Yard by the week. Can’t you understand we’re British citizens too? We’re entitled to protection just like anyone else. Why couldn’t they send someone to flush out these creeps? It’s an outrage! We were simply ignored!”
Interesting story, isn’t it? It’s occurred to me that it’s possible that something else was Britain’s friend here. Not just the readiness of the Muslim comunities to police themselves. It may also have been a higher level of education that protects them from paying serious attention to the kind of rot Al Qaeda and fellow travelers spout.
===
[MN]
That’s certainly putting it in the best possible light. However, there is an alternate view.
Pipes almost garnered the honor to be winner of the Islamic Human Rights Commission “Most Islamophobic media personality”.
However, first place was siezed by Polly Toynbee:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1285291,00.html
I hope everyone will take the time to follow that link. There is a fundamental clash between pacifism and tolerance arising which Ms. Toynbee discusses at length.
MN - thanks for the links back to Daniel Pipes. I have skimmed two articles and added him to my Bookmarks for regular review.
I’m really encouraged to see posts today that acknowledge the fact that most Muslims are not supportive of terrorism. NPR had an interview today with a Muslim cleric in VA who made a well supported case that the general population in this country has exhibited very little overall hostility to members of the Muslim faith while government authorities have been far more suspicious and hostile than they ever imagined. A number of callers verified this.
I hate to sound cynical, but to me this is simply another example of institutional bungling, squandering the good will of the very people we most need to bring to our side to combat a real threat to our safety.
Force is not going to be the main solution to this problem - ever. We should have learned that in past conflicts, and certainly many knowledgable people were sounding (muted) alarms before the invasion of Iraq. We must constructively engage with the moderates on all sides and get the extremists, on all sides, isolated from one another. There is no effective military solution to this problem, though military action may be a component of a solution in some specific cases, such as apprehension of a target.
I’m rambling - it’s late. Thanks again for the links. Do you read Juan Cole? You might like him for another viewpoint on these matters.
I was pleased to read Mr. Keillor’s article. He was able to voice, in a spectacular way, what many Americans believe.
Who could believe that a man who went AWOL from the National Guard would have the audacity to denigrate a Vietnam War hero? A lot of idiots actually believed it!
Bush has betrayed the nation by attacking a country that was not a threat to us, instead of concentrating on the terrorist threat to America.
His actions have created many more terrorists than have been killed.
Bush has betrayed the nation by reversing bipartisanship support for clean air, clean water, and other environmental issues.
Bush has betrayed the nation by allowing corporations to write the laws by which they are to be regulated, with no input from anyone else.
He has betrayed the nation by giving massive tax cuts to the richest Americans, and then cutting money for public education and other programs because the tax cuts don’t leave enough money for them.
Bush has betrayed the nation by passing a medicare drug plan to give billions to the drug industry and raising the drug costs
to most senior citizens.
The great hope for this country rests in electing
some who will fight for the values of this country, who will fight for the average American to get his fair piece of the economic pie. He will recognize the importance of the separation of church and state for the benefit of both institutions,will keep the government out of the bedroom, and allow stem cell research.Vote Kerry!
It’s exactly what I’ve been thinking and didn’t know how to say it and you have done it so well. I wish everyone would read and heed!
Bill Clinton, undoubtedly the wittiest and most intelligent President since Abraham Lincoln, said it best: “When the American people take the time to think, they elect a Democrat. When they get tired of thinking, they elect a Republican.”
The last time this country held an election, the people chose a Democrat, so they must have been thinking, right? The irony, however, is that at least this time, “thinking” just didn’t count for much. Certainly not in the face of brute force and gang mentality.
Yes, dear thinking Americans, dear thoughtful, rational, logical Ladies and Gentlemen… it really did happen, and we all just sat back and watched. Our first televised national political coup. Illegal, immoral, and seemingly impossible. How could it ever happen here?
Perhaps it was so “unthinkable” that it’s easier to believe it didn’t really happen. Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, places like that perhaps, and, oh yes, Germany once upon a time; but not here in America. We have “checks and balances” to prevent things like that.
A “for real” coup d’état? You know, the sudden overthrow of a government, usually by a small group of people who either still are or who were previously in positions of power and authority? No way.
Really? Ask the folks in Florida whose neighborhoods were cordoned off with concrete barriers by local law enforcement so they couldn’t drive to the polls. Did it seem like America then? The United States of America?
Hey, remember when that ignorant old peanut farmer Jimmy Carter took a few “observers” with him to those poor, down-trodden “third world” countries to make sure everybody played by the rules so that the candidates the people elected were the ones who actually took office, despite the threats of resident thugs?
What do you think the American people would have thought if Jimmy had looked the other way when the guy who ended up in office got there because the judges that his dad and his dad’s boss had appointed decreed that a province run by the guy’s own brother had to give its votes to him, despite the fact that the majority of the people there voted for the other guy?
Wouldn’t it have been a no-brainer that the “election” was unfair? You would think so, wouldn’t you? Well, guess what. It doesn’t matter what you think. Think, or don’t. It only matters what you do. Remember?
Does “reality” ring a bell? It’s like that show they have on TV a lot now. It’s not really reality, you know, it’s just pretend. Really. Even though it seems real, you have to keep in mind that real people don’t have cameras and microphones following them around in their real lives.
You are real. George W. Bush is real. Condoleezza (I’m not making this up) Rice is real. Do something. Please.
Georgie Porgie our president high
His WMD was just a lie.
Georgie Porgie said bye bye
And sent us to Iraq to die.
Georgie Porgie then did cry
I got him, Daddy, didn’t I!
I couldn’t agree with you more. My husband and I have said more than once, if we have four more years of this administration, then it may just be time to move our family to New Zealand.
Never heard of Garrison Keillor, but man is he angry. Imagine him in a dialogue with Bush. Napalm would be gentler on Bush.
I am not American, but I hope you will take a moment to read the rest of what I wanted to say.
What really strikes me the most about all these posts is that you all speak of the republicans as if they are the dim witted ones. The same can be said about Michael Moore and his attack on them (Moore is a good person. He Loves his country and the people in it).
Its really a contradiction though is it not. You are all the same, shit WE are all the same. Its sad to see the “Its us or them”, although when it comes to the crunch I imagine that you will all stick together. This is the important part and people should keep that in mind at all times.
What America and the rest of the world needs is some alien force to come and whip our asses. That will be sure to get every sorry mother fucker fanatic to co-operate with is earth enemy against the evil force. Just imagine Islamic folk fighting next to Republicans. Jews next to Hindus or better still the KKK being helped out by a black brother. That would be a sight and a beautiful one at that.
You all know that Bush has got to go. You are not only doing this for yourselves, but for all of us.
Thank you!
I’m not allowed by the inmates In These Times to address thoughts directly to them—too traumatic—but I hope they can handle the occasional news article.
Looks like the interns at the Bush-hating Kerry Kamp have produced forged documents about their nemesis, the Etch-A-Sketch Prez.
Silly Lying Kerry Kamp Villians. When will they, and the Left, learn that cheaters never prosper:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bombshell-spectator-post.html
Thank you, Mr. Keillor, for stating your opinion about the sad shape in which we find our country. One of the comments about your article stated that you should keep out of politics, and that has always been said to those whose views are in contrast to someone who doesn’t have enough depth to their convictions to have them challenged (or is not knowledgeable enough to defend their ideas). Generally, I would say that it is polite to avoid talking politics, but it is hard not to express your opinion these days, especially if you feel strongly about the way the USA has been run over these past four years. I am not shocked by anything that comes out of the Bush Admin., but I find it appalling that the American people are allowing such intolerance.
Wake up, USA!!!! and listen, NO, I AM NOT AFRAID EVERY MINUTE THAT SOME TERRORIST WILL TAKE MY LIFE. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO HATE US. -(an argument the right-wingers love to use to absolve themselves from thought, along with tearing open the wound of 9/11 at every opportunity) There is no reason in any time to elect leaders whose strength is making snap decisions with as little information as possible, and holding to those like a dog with a bone. This is not a virtue. In fact, I thought the word for that was stupid.
It is impossible to hold this Administration accountable without holding the whole lot of them accountable. George W. Bush is the perfect figure head for this group, and they load and fire him as they need to.
Hey, the gloves are coming off, and the sissies are ready to defend their country!
Count me in.
It would appear that Bush Administration policy is having the desired effect on protecting America from terrorism.
Despite those who would see terrorism by small, “repressed” countries and factions as the moral equivalent of a rape being the ugly man’s courtship, i.e., that one does what one has to to succeed, damning the moral implications and consequences, right-thinking Americans know terrorism must be confronted.
Bush Administration Policies protect America. For this reason, and for the reason that the President’s opponent simply cannot define a functional policy—no more in national security than in any domestic program—the President will likely be re-elected by a substantial margin.
Preemption works: http://nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200409101000.asp
Horace English has kindly provided us with a link and a conclusion, presumably based on the linked article. I followed the link and IMHO, the conclusion that “preemption works” is not supported by the content. In fact, while the author contains one brief mention of the US military response to terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bulk of his writing focuses on the inherent weaknesses in the jihadi movement and shows that its actions only serve to drive moderate Arabs and Muslims away.
Here are the author’s conclusions, in his own words:
“Islam’s “vanguard,” as Zawahiri called it, has an opportunity to redefine the message and turn away from the extremists. America will win the war against extremism because America’s values are righteous, and because God, whatever you conceive Him to be, is at our side. But Islam will surely lose its credibility as a great religion if its benefactors don’t stand now and drive the final nail into the coffin of the terrorists who have hijacked a noble faith.
The terrorists have turned on themselves because they have no morality and no code. Let’s now finish the job and rise up against them en masse with ideas that reflect human values, not just Islamic values: to mobilize the Muslim masses against their own extremist creed for the good of humanity. To do otherwise is to show the ultimate disrespect for our fallen heroes, both here in America and now in the fields of Beslan, where the innocence of our children was lost as well.”
Note that his call to arms involves ideas, not military force. That is not to say that military response is never under any circumstances necessary. I think of it as pragmatic pacifism, and I think that’s pretty much what most people in this country endorse. It’s an approach that seeks other ways to resolve conflicts, and recognizes that violent preemption will only provide temporary ‘relief’ if any, and that any relief thus obtained will by its nature breed more hatred, bitterness, resentment and violence. This is also called common sense in some circles.
The author also takes leaders in the American Muslim community to task for failing to speak out for moderation. I believe they have done this in many instances, on a local community basis, but have often been put on the defensive by the belligerent tone of our official doctrine of preemption, which seems to have extended itself from the military/diplomatic realm into domestic law enforcement and public policy via the policies of the Justice Department.
If you want to find incoherence and lack of direction in national security policy, don’t go to John Kerry’s web site. Just take a look at the past three years of the Bush administration. Oh, heck, go on back to his first week in the White House, with Condi and the rest of them throwing a blankiet over the most competent intelligence experts and focusing on Cold War issues.
This election is a referendum on the lack of leadership and integrity of the current administration. Don’t fall for their tango around the facts. Even the conservative press is filled with articles that openly or by implication offer stern criticism of Bush’s policies and actions, and rightly so. Sugar coating it with a nod to our fallen heroes, who deserve more than that, does not alter the fact that we’ve made a mess of things and it’s time to straighten up.
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
I don’t know 6gun,Bush cheated and won the last election,and he has been cheating american ever since and has amassed a tidy little fortune.Of course that’s about to come to a screeching ass halt.Have a good day and whining doesn’t become you.Ed P.
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
It’s always costly for those who depend on the good will of the public for their livings and futures to speak out on politics. That you have done so is a much appreciated contribution to the work of getting our Nation back onto its once reasonable course.
We haven’t had so articulate a spokesman in the cause of common sense since Thomas Paine. Thank you for your effort and your eloquence.
Harry Gehlert
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
THANK YOU GARRISON! This is the best summary I’ve seen of what I think is the sad situation in this country today. Thank you for deciding you need to speak out. You have a chance of convincing the good, strong, hard-working people who are being led by fear down a bad, self-destructive path.
Three cheers for your words and your courage.
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Ok,Gary we get the message,but this is also a place to have a costructive dialogue.Not just a place to flood with a political campaign. I already am going to vote for Kerry,not because he is the best man,but because he is not George Bush.So enough already Gary.Ed P.
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE **************************************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
******************** KERRY WILL WIN ********************
******************** BUSH WILL LOSE ********************
Get informed!!!
More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.
The oppo researcher claimed the source was “a retired military officer.” According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.
“More than a couple people heard about the papers,” says the DNC staffer. “I’ve heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity.”
The concerns arose from the sourcing. “It wasn’t clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn’t confirm from what file, from what original source they came from.”
A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.
“The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush’s file that had Killian calling Bush ‘an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.’ And someone who Killian said ‘performed in an outstanding manner.’ Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.”
The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. “This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn’t show it,” says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.
Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign.
Posted by Hindrocket at 07:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (4)
Democrats Seek to Profit from 60 Minutes Hoax
The Democrats are now busily distancing themselves from the 60 Minutes hoax, denying that they had anything to do with the forged documents. But at 10:29 last night, just as the 60 Minutes hoax was conclusively unravelling, the Democratic National Committee sent out an email that said:
Back in February, President Bush sat down in the Oval Office for an interview with Tim Russert and spoke about his service in the National Guard. Bush told us, “I put in my time, proudly so.” He said, “And I’m telling you, I did my duty.”
But now we know that Bush dishonored the Oval Office by lying to the American people.
New military documents show that Bush disobeyed a direct order from his commander to take a flight physical and “failed to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards”—and was grounded as a result.
New evidence supports claims that Bush missed months of service and that he never showed up for service with the Alabama National Guard.
New evidence shows that Bush received special treatment. His supervisor wrote that he felt pressured from above to “sugar coat” Bush’s records.
And Ben Barnes, former Lt. Governor and State House Speaker of Texas, has come forward to say that he pulled strings to get Bush a coveted spot in the Guard, which directly contradicts Bush’s claim that he received no special treatment.
The Democratic Party’s email concludes with a list of “questions” for President Bush, based on the forged CBS documents and the claims of Ben Barnes. The party asks Democrats to write letters to their local newspapers, publicizing the “facts” contained in the forged 60 Minutes documents.
CBS says that it has launched an investigation into the Killian document hoax. (Of course, they haven’t admitted yet that the documents were forged, but that will come soon.) The first question will be, where did the documents come from? So far, CBS has refused to say who the source was. But we know now that it wasn’t a member of Jerry Killian’s family. So who else would have had, for the last thirty-two years, a handful of typed memos that supposedly were put in Killian’s “personal file”?
Anyone want to bet that when the source is finally revealed, it will be a Democrat? And what do you think the odds are that 60 Minutes can keep the results of its “investigation” quiet until November?
Posted by Hindrocket at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (3)
Hurricane Dan
In his New York Post column this morning John Podhoretz brilliantly summarizes yesterday’s investigation into the 60 Minutes memos: “CBS’s big blunder?”
HINDROCKET adds: See also Thomas Lipscomb’s piece in the Chicago Sun-Times. Both Podhoretz and Lipscomb credit Power Line and our readers for our part in exposing the 60 Minutes hoax.
Posted by The Big Trunk at 01:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (12)
CBS overboard
Thank you mary.
If this information about a hoax proves to be true.It is a sad commentary on how far people are willing to go to win an election.I am against Bush,but there is plenty of legitimate information to use against George to win the election. Ed P.
Oh for crying out loud. Let’s see, more than six weeks ago an “oppo researcher” received these documents. Who is the researcher? You may be aware that the very finest oppo researchers are drawn from the ranks of the “oppo.” Duh.
Then they were handed around the DNC and, supposedly, the Kerry campaign honchos. Then, dopes that they are, they handed them over to CBS. Now that was really insane, since CBS has clearly shown its incompetence in making sensible decisions about such matters in the past. They combine a craven lust for the scoop with timidity in the face of the usual right wing onslaught produced by anything short of adulation of Republican figureheads. They never would have had the balls to run the Abu Ghraib story if Seymour Hersch hadn’t done all the heavy lifting for them. Idiots.
But the Democrats, in their usual bumbling fashion when it comes to fighting for their life in a brutal political campaign, hands the documents to CBS, who then finds some evidently less than competent ‘experts’ to vet them for authenticity. Hello? Do we hear or see anything here that indicates that the DNC or the Kerry campaign did anything that was more than foolish?
There is not one iota of evidence of culpability on the part of any member of the DNC, the campaign, or any other Democrat. That may indeed emerge, but frankly this is much more Karl Rove’s style than anything else. Too bad the Dems seem to have lost the latest game of rope-a-dope. The real shame is that the world will suffer for it if it works its magic.
This is not a game. There are real victims of this juvenile madness that has infected our political process. Demand an end to it and a focus on the real issues of this election. Write to the candidates and their campaigns and demand that they stop playing games with our lives.
One more thing. I want to point out that the legal staff of Viacom, which owns CBS, is the same team that refused to run the MoveOn ads during the Superbowl because they “don’t do political ads”, then turned around and approved the Swift Boat ads on my local CBS affiliate station. I have correspondence with the local station to prove this. CBS is also the network that caved in to the right and refused to air a made for TV movie about Ronald Reagan’s presidency after being intimidated by an astroturf campaign from the right before the movie aired. Now I don’t care one way or another about a crappy TV movie that is just another vehicle to sell us more junk at Walmart, but CBS is neither the pinnacle of integrity nor consistency in their position on airing anything of a political nature. They are embedded in the Republican Party, especially Dan Blather. Whichever side you favor to win, if you are a person of any integrity whatsoever, you will try to focus the public debate on real policy issues. Stop the madness!!!
register a new account »Posting Security