Hey, Scott - Go follow that link provided by your good buddy, 6Pack. It’s a riot! Everyone, go there! It’s a site that purports to be about the injustices suffered by children and their parents when the courts determine custody rights upon dissolution of the marriage. And the answer they’ve come up with is to sue all 50 states for TRILLIONS of dollars!!! So much for tort reformers on the right. What a creative scam. I hope you all appreciate the time and taxpayer dollars your state may have to spend to deal with this. I’m sure glad that someone has taken up the cause of embittered divorced parents who resent the fact that they have to pay child support but, by virtue of having lost custody of their children, have lost the power to tell their ex-spouses what to do! This is so grotesquely unjust that I just think these individuals deserve millions in compensation from the state governments which, having permitted them to marry (foolishly as it turns out), and then agreed to dissolve those marriage bonds, has had the temerity to ajudicate between adults who can no longer be civil to one another and work things out for the sake of their progeny.
And you think we liberal/progressive types are a menace to society? LOL
And Scott, some Republicans do appear to have taken advice and inspiration from the communication experts in the Nazi Party. I’ve also heard Democrats called Nazis. Big deal. As my darling mother used to say, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” But then she also said, “If the shoe fits, buy two pair. You’ll need a spare.” Take your pick.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 5:39 PM
I have a question for 6gun in reference to his fine dissertation for us on the constitution and separation of church and state.
Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli dated 4 November 1796 (the end of Washington’s last term as President). Unlike the Declaration of Independence which does state “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” the Treaty signed by John Adams President and approved by the Senate and ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797 states the “Government of teh United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, ot tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared byt eh parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The Treaty once ratified represented U. S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2). By virtue of it’s wording and dating the treaty clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U. S. government.
To include Secular Humanism in the context of a religion as defined by the dictionary would be a far reach of believability. By definition religion requires the belief in and reverance for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe. Humanism being a system of though centered on human and their values, capacities and worth. Secular being worldly not spiritual, not related to religion. I can not see the ability to combine them and then call that by definition a religion.
Are you currently teaching at a college or university or is this what yu wrote you Master’s Thesis on or perhaps your Doctoral Thesis? If so I would be interested in seeing all of it.
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:01 PM
garrison keillor certainly can write a powerfull article. just one problem, it’s fiction. if even some of it were true i might have a little more respect for him. if he thinks we’re in trouble now, god help us if john kerry gets into office.
Posted by keith radford on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:24 PM
Lyle, I think 6Pack/BBGun/PopGun is an entry-pre-noor, working at home on two ‘jobs.’ In other words, a consultant, or a multi-level marketer. Am I getting close, 6? You haven’t commented on my earlier post about being self-employed. Was I off base as to the realities, or can you concede that someone can be in business and still a liberal/whacko, (insert insulting term here)?
By the way, Gunslinger, Bill Clinton did a pretty good job of taking responsibility, though belatedly, for his marital infidelity and the consequences. Undertanding one’s weaknesses, acknowledging them, and then moving on (which includes making amends as best one can, correcting one’s thinking and behavior as needed) is not a sign of dysfunction. In fact, I believe our current President, a former substance abuser and neglecter of his family, would agree.
Do you have a mirror next to your computer monitor so you can admire your halo all day long?
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:28 PM
Joanne, I suspect it past BBGun’s bedtime (I am not very convinced that he is the middle-aged, upright citizen he wants us to think he is)....
Posted by Anna on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:34 PM
“A rainy night in Georgia, oh it’s a rainy night in Georgia…” (Well, actually, in Chattanooga).
Hello, all. Just a quick shout-out from half-way to Hot-lanta. I’m too tired to stay on the road because it has been rainy and windy since I left my farm. Just a few quick observations.
The link in Geoff’s latest post is a RIOT!! I was laughing so hard in Kinko’s that the staff here probably were worried (like Scott) that I had left my lithium at home. Geoff, that was such a gift. It’s great to see wicked (and uncensored) humor that is also balanced. Quick, everyone, go visit “This Land Is Your Land” at Geoff’s last post.
Since Scott and ToyGun still haven’t really told us what they do for a living, can we play 20 questions? Scott, does your job have anything to do with modeling leather and lace accessories at Victor(ia)‘s Secret? And ToyGun, you just sound like a blood pressure monitor tester to me—am I right? If I’ve ever wanted to tell two people to “Love Our Democracy and Respect the Importance (and Necessity) of Good Government—Or Leave the Process”, it’s you two (and your nonresponsive friend Brooks—who just has to be a mid-level social services manager in a perpetually underfunded Texas state agency. See, that’s what happens when you underfund and understaff needed social services in Duh-bya’s Amerika—you get employees who spend their time despising their clientele, misquoting government pamphlets and planning on “going postal” as a career move.
Oops, I guess the “let’s all get along” fairy dust wore off when I crossed into another time zone. Or maybe my meds are wearing off. Quick, someone call Canada—I can’t afford them from anywhere south of there (at least not for a few more months anyway). Great to “hear” from the old and the new posters at this 21st century stagecoach stop on the Internet (and interstate) highway. Thanks for the good thoughts, Daydreamer, they have real power, as I am sure you know. And keep the Georgia lights on for me, won-cha? Ni-tall.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:55 PM
Mike,
Sorry but we did not win the Korean War. It was a stalemate. That is why the country is divide today.
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:10 PM
All of this cattiness produced at the mere hands of a mid-level wet-behind-the-ears telemarketer working at home in his underwear between tea luncheons with Mom. You so flatter me; will we be turning up the heat now, really bringing the intellectual artillery, etc., etc.
At any rate, you should know better, Miss Phoebe—no, really you should know better, at least about family law before you go off so. Sadly ignorant you do not. It’s just another aspect of government run amok (and in violation of It’s For the Children leftist weepiness) and therefore evidently for your Righteousness to ignore. So much for those ‘Wing civil rights, Phoebe? Not really for the children after all, is it?
You and Anna do have a nice time now and leave the heavy lifting to others.
And Bernie! Don’t feel left out, babe! Love the heels; no really I do. Do stop in and tell us all about your booty again some time, y’hear?
And so goes intelligent, nuanced, superior dialogue with the Left…
Bye kids, there’s really nothing new here, is there? (And you never figured out “6Gun.” Leftists have so little humor…)
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:36 PM
Bernie wrote: “Since Scott and ToyGun still haven’t really told us what they do for a living, can we play 20 questions?”
—————
Well Bernie, I didn’t know that my occupation was any of your business, nor do I even know what it has to do with the present discussion. But, if you really must know, I’m a crack dealer. It’s honest work, pays well, and I get to make my own hours. I also peddle a few hoes on the side when my sisters need the extra cash. My hobbies are pouring toxic waste into the water supplies of predominantly black neighborhoods, and I like going around killing innocent Jews. Oh, and stamp collecting also.
Thank you for your interest Bernie, Anna, and Joanne.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:06 PM
Joanne,
I must have missed the post where we were to guess his/her idenities. That’s what I get for being at the Dr’s. all day. It’s a bitch getting old. I’m ready to head to Iraq. Who want’s to come along? Grab your 16 and a double basic load and let’s go. Go out with a bang. Give this planet to the Rad Cons and see how long it lasts in their collective care. Can’t understand all those very intelligent people I have read here following the Tin Man. Any of us could be asleep and be more than the equal of GWB. Must be the money. I never was much of a follower. Maverick yes. Good night Joanne, Bernie safe travels, Anna and all the unnamed others.
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:14 PM
Oh, and Lyle, if your question is genuine, it deserves a serious answer. So much of what goes on here is hasty and appropriate only for a casual thread following a horribly poorly reasoned screed that I don’t take too much of it seriously. I have neither the time nor background to spend hours at this…although Keillor’s rot struck a nerve, I admit.
But if you want my personal take on the nature of personal rights and responsibilities in America, should that be important in some way, I take what I hope is a fairly straight-ahead, decidedly non-nuanced view. I dislike the angels on pinheads reasoning I see from the Left’s intelligentsia simply because it always focuses on minutia and never really meets the road in any meaningful way.
It’s my belief that man always has a belief, a faith, and I believe simple logic supports this notion. When the relativist states there are no absolutes, the absolute nature of his assertion (one I believe lies deep in the heart of a huge section of post-modern America) defies him and his philosophy dies. When the atheist states there is no Higher Power, his motivation too is meanwhile either nihilistic or noble; and he too unavoidably chooses at the least an ethical position on the continuum (that includes for others a meaningful image of a Creator as the highest power) or he aims off into chaos and lawlessness and pain. His Higher Power is very real, if conditional and selfish, regardless of how he labels it.
So while the semantics get complicated, the essential beliefs in right and wrong, harm and justice, and truth and falsehood are universal. A rose by any other name will always be a rose. So too murder by any name under any jurisdiction will always be murder. The absolute nature of justice is obvious and the pinnacle of the development of the concept of justice, I believe, is Christian. Not religious; Christian.
Christianity is the world’s most hated religion, I believe, because it shames the others with their own limited humanistic inadequacy. This inferiority comes out in Islamic fundamentalist hatred, Eastern fatalistic envy, and even maybe occasionally in Western Christianese fundamentalist politics…that handy-dandy scapegoat also used by the Left’s secularists to lampoon all Christian ideals. Rome tortured Christ to death to protect institutional power structures that spanned Church and State and America would do nearly the same to any similar mindset. There’s nothing new under the Sun.
So no matter our choice of labels, we all have an orientation that either ethically, morally, and spiritually enhances or diminishes both our surroundings and ourselves and does so by some available measure, provided we are open to defining it honestly.
This states the obvious, I think.
Yet any number of illogical mindsets should fall by the way, including American materialistic Epicureanism – eat, drink, and be merry because there are, absolutely, no absolutes. Ironically it’s this pervasive hatred of a Higher Power that both fascinates and enrages the Left. Look around to see this notion brought to the brink of its credibility before its crowd turns to personal attacks.
I likely do not use terms like Secular Humanism and Socialism technically correctly, nor around here do I particularly care. And they may not even be the correct terms to use to describe our postmodern American situation. Although the SCOTUS nearly defined Secular Humanism as a religion, it may not technically be so…at least in the dictionary definition. If this makes some uncomfortable, I’d suggest installing some other term that acknowledges what functional atheists believe instead, that every view is morally equivalent and every structure of society designed and able to support true fairness and equality is entirely flexible.
From this we have the Living Constitution, and other poor logic that only serves to break down classic, proved, conserved beliefs based on tradition and prior proof of concept. From this we have the antithesis of Constitutional contractual ethics (where each citizen is sovereign, beholden to no State, self-responsible, and free.)
So if traditional moral ideals are the cornerstone of this Constitutional Republic (if some Western ethic and law was built on developed concepts like justice, presumption of innocence, and freedom of speech) then we cannot afford to separate those moral ideals – the Church – from law and governance – the State. And in fact the Constitution does not guarantee you and I freedom from religion; rather freedom OF religion…that same general set of beliefs the Founders obviously collectively had in mind when they spoke of them.
Precisely what religion, if any, they had in mind had a decidedly noble intent at its core. Were they fatalists? Did they believe in the moral equivalence of every philosophy or faith that came down the pike? Obviously not or we’d have no Constitutional foundation on which to build our essential core social beliefs such as that freedom of religion or freedom to dissent or freedom of the pursuit of happiness. Even happiness requires justice…
And this is what should trouble us about postmodern American opportunistic relativism. This everything-goes philosophy houses implied chaos at its core, and with a Roman-like thumbs-up/thumbs-down pure democracy to vote itself somebody else’s money and somebody else’s justice at the whim of the majority. It’s this State that I believed the Founders feared, and it’s this State that must be separated from the private sector; the Church. Meanwhile, it is essential that the Church, or the private sector’s noble morality must daily infuse the State in order to prevent its collapse. Even a Constitution can’t hold back corruption forever.
Secular Humanism is a convenient phrase for the state of liberal secular America. It fits the description of a consuming philosophical mindset, if not a dictionary-perfect practicing religion…although that’s more a semantics issue than a practical use. At Humanism’s core is the vast relativity of the pure chaotic democracy, that place where simple rule of majority force replaces rule of reason and fairness. And this secular state of mind and country is based on an obviously de-centralized Higher Power, or rather, an infinitely diverse mass of higher powers, each beholden only to the individual to do with what he pleases.
I’m aware that the Founders weren’t all of some specific religion as much as I’m aware that America isn’t a formally Christian nation in the religious sense. But I’m also convinced that America was built from the presumption that justice and fairness and freedom issued from a God who granted them as essentials of life. To think that we can now successfully replace those absolute ideals with a situational modification that flies on the winds of cultural and political change at any one instant and not loose our freedom is illogical. Unless we keep the inevitable corruption of central power at bay by constant vigilance and the highest ethics, we’ll lose this experiment much the same way so many others before ours have been lost. Not by natural events or catastrophe, but by the weight of our own corruption.
America may not be a religious nation, and the Founders may not have been unanimous in their beliefs, but America once was a free nation, a free nation that could never had existed if not for the highest principles, principles not coincidently found at the core of our best faiths.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:23 PM
Geoff,
It remains to be seen whether the Islamists in Chechnya will drive Russia closer to the USA. Certainly Putin has his hands full. The jihadi there have delared their intention to establish a Caliphate in the Caucasus:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php
(scroll down to the “interview”)
Meanwhile, the French have responded to Russia in their usual high-handed way:
“Indeed, we want to express both our solidarity over this act of terrorism against Russia but also we want to have all the necessary information and we remind Russia every time we meet of the need to respect human rights,” Raffarin said.
“It is natural that solidarity in the face of terrorism is balanced by this requirement towards our partners,” he added.
—French Prime Minister Raffarin
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06528713.htm
Go to news.google.com and search on <French Putin>. It isn’t pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3682-2004Sep7.html
Paraphrasing a comment I saw on the web: “As enemies, the French are no problem, but as allies, they are treacherous.”
If they did join the coalition, they would contribute less than 5,000 troops, that’s all they can afford.
You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition. We differ there. Who needs them?
We don’t need to get in a twist negotiating with France and Germany for permission to protect ourselves against terrorism, and against those who would supply terrorists with nukes. It’s futile. It will sap our energy and our will. If they want to follow our lead, that’s wonderful.
Our opponents, the Islamist jihadi, have a clear and non-negotiable view of what they want to accomplish and we need to be similarly steadfast.
The French and Germans have 5 - 10% muslim populations, causing them significant security concerns. It will be some time before the Alliance forms again, but form it will, once the attacks spread to France and Germany. The governments in both countries are already in trouble, as is Russia’s. Don’t tell me terrorism doesn’t work.
Whoever wins in November, we must pull together as a country. But I’m voting for Bush and his team as being the best to lead us through this, and I hope you will, too.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:33 PM
6gun,
Thank you for your answer I will read it over carefully when I return from my daily labors. It was a dn is an honest request. Thank you again.
Lyle
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:14 AM
Thank you for printing this! A reasoned, and all-too-true look at the current state of the union.
Posted by Lin Stein on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:50 AM
6Gun - Thanks for actually joining the discussion.
You say,“So no matter our choice of labels, we all have an orientation that either ethically, morally, and spiritually enhances or diminishes both our surroundings and ourselves and does so by some available measure, provided we are open to defining it honestly. ”
I agree completely with this statement as a stand-alone.
You say, “I likely do not use terms like Secular Humanism and Socialism technically correctly, nor around here do I particularly care. And they may not even be the correct terms to use to describe our postmodern American situation. ”
Precisely. And this is where your arguments and justifications really start to break down and turn back upon themselves. Precision counts when you’re trying to communicate and make a point with others. If you use terms incorrectly or interchangeably or otherwise inappropriately, you will inevitably short-circuit the discussion. You end up with chaos, which is hardly an effective strategy. To pull this out of the ethereal realm, look at the problems Bush has with this issue. Has this tendency to ‘mispronunciate’ and/or ‘misspeak’ enhanced his credibility in any way? The same could be said for any of the politicians and public figures. The tendency to be sloppy in the use of our shared language sets the stage for misunderstanding, without which there can be no resolution of conflict, no ability to reach consensus, and no peace. Christ was a great teacher, even in translation three steps removed from the original (Aramaic?), and part of his genius was simplicity and clarity. Certain themes are repeated again and again, and they are clear and simple. There is also much embellishment that has been added in over the millenia, often with a political agenda attached.
You say, “...it is essential that the Church, or the private sector’s noble morality must daily infuse the State in order to prevent its collapse. Even a Constitution can’t hold back corruption forever.”
Once again, I agree. However, your house of cards is getting shakier. You speak of freedom OF religion, but now you’re laboring mightily to make sure we understand that someone, perhaps yourself, should decide what constitutes a religion. But then, quite rightly (or should I say *leftly*) you insert the private sector’s noble morality as an equivalent.
In your next paragraph you once again choose to provide your own idiosycratic definition of Secular Humanism, which is drawn straight from the 700 Club and its ilk, despite the fact that both terms have been discussed and defined earlier in this thread in order to provide a common frame of reference for this discussion. What you are really identifying here is probably closer to Hedonism than Humanism, and then you proceed to imply that those of us on the left are all Hedonists/Humanists/Animists/Atheists/unprincipled dogs or whatever. Ho hum. You can put lipstick on that pig, but it’s still a pig. A noble creature to be sure, but still no big white horse.
Finally, you say, “Unless we keep the inevitable corruption of central power at bay by constant vigilance and the highest ethics, we’ll lose this experiment much the same way so many others before ours have been lost. Not by natural events or catastrophe, but by the weight of our own corruption. “
Exactly! And it has been said earlier and needs saying again, that when even language becomes corrupted in the name of a cause, no ethical person can stand idle in the face of such onslaught.
We’ve heard the term ‘smoke and mirrors’ repeatedly from the right in this blog. I hold up your efforts, as genuine and honest as they may be (and I believe they are and I honor the effort), I believe that a close reading shows where the smoke and mirrors are located. The absolute genius of the Founders of this country was in their deep knowledge of both philosophy and religion, their intellectual muscle, and their vision. Though the pace of change was much slower in the 18th century, there were great changes in society during their lifetimes. They were aware of worlds beyond their own because they were voracious readers, thinkers, and in many cases talkers and travelers. They built us a Constitution that would be flexible enough to protect the fundamental values of freedom, justice, and fairness without endorsing any particular religious or spiritual practices. They planned for a living, breathing Constitution that was not only able to adapt to social change, but that could provide mechanisms to slow such change to a pace that is manageable. Thus, the long and uncompleted journey to full recognition of the rights of minorities, women, children, and the GLBT community among others. While this pace is too fast for some and agonizingly slow for others, it is specifically what has prevented the chaotic descent into the tyranny of the majority.
I still can’t help feeling that your personal concept of freedom of religion is actually one of freedom FROM religion. That is, you would prefer to be free of the necessity of accommodating those of other religious, spiritual or agnostic paths in your world. You have the mind set of a missionary. So go forth, but don’t complain when you meet resistance and please refrain from thinking that you can win with a gun.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:25 AM
MN - 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. I know you think liberal is a dirty insulting word, but how about moderate? It comes down to whether you want to be a nut or a nutcracker. As opposed to a ball buster…
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:09 AM
“Steve, Steve, Steve - The military does not award the “V” with Bronze”
Yes they do. I’m surprised as a vet you don’t know this. I realize this is the latest talk radio attack point, but research this for yourself first.
“I am a Vet and I respect those that were awarded medals, but you gotta admit there are some questions as to the validity of Kerry’s medals.”
Only those manufactured by the partisan SWIFTVETS.
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:18 AM
“A question for all of the noble, intelligent, morally superior liberals on this thread: Given the obvious fact that John Kerry cannot even run a halfway effective presidential campaign, (which is a great deal simpler than running this country)”
You’re right. John Kerry is not as effective as Bush is in using lies and distortions to run his campaign and presidency.
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:21 AM
Huzzah, Garrison. Well said, man. Well said.
Me, I’m just Joe Average from a small farming town in Michigan. Kinda like Lake Wobegon but absent the interesting characters. Still, I read:
News report: (Reuters) - Friday August 6, 2004
“Halliburton Accused of Accounting Fraud
A class-action lawsuit against Halliburton Co.
contends that the world’s No. 2 oilfield services
company and several top executives intentionally
engaged in ‘serial accounting fraud’ from 1998 to
2001, court papers show.”
Sigh… so America suffers yet more scandal from scam-artists in Big Business. Damn, if it isn’t Enron it’s Tyco, it’s Halliburton, ...ad nauseum.
Lessee here.. Dick Cheney is CEO at Halliburton until 1999; s-elected to the Whitehouse with Shrub in 2000 after a political coup in the vote-miscount debacle; in 2001 Cheney secretly meets with Big Oil execs who create America’s “next energy policy” but won’t reveal participants’ names or disclose transcripts; by 2003, Shrub invades Iraq which has the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves; Halliburton wins all the big oilfield services contracts from the US government, only to be found out they’re overbilling American taxpayers by zillions of dollars; and now in 2004 Halliburton’s ‘top executives’ are uncovered to be intentionally defrauding us—the American taxpayers—many of whom worked to prevent this absurd Iraq war because we declare its entire premise unsound.
Sigh. ...pulling out the soapbox, standing on top, arching my back, forming cupped hands before my mouth and yelling unto the land:
*** Wake Up, American Voters!! ***
—————————————
Defend our country. Preserve our rights. Vote with your feet: walk to the polls in November. Vote out these cat turds who subvert our democratic principles and sabotage our financial security with their greed. Return our country to We The People. Wrest our destiny away from Republican EvilDoers who foreclose our future with their egregious pursuit of money and power. Long Live Democracy in America!
Bush/Cheney, YOU’RE FIRED.
[Can I get an Amen, folks? Lemme hear from ya at:
rich_carl@yahoo.com - peace & love, Rich Carl]
Posted by Rich-in-Daughters on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:23 AM
“Why is it that Kerry will not address the Swift Boat Vets claims? He can’t.”
He did. And the Navy records and various media investigations and eyewitness accounts already shot the SWIFTVETS credibility to nil. Can’t believe you guys are still beating this dead horse.
“How many people has Kerry been credited for killing in Vietnam? 20.”
Thought you guys claim he wasn’t in a single firefight.
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:25 AM
[Can I get an Amen, folks? Lemme hear from ya
at: rich_carl @ yahoo.com
- peace & love, Rich Carl]
Posted by Rich Carl on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:27 AM
Phoebe/Joanna, I really, really didn’t want to get back into this but I will say that your pedantic whining continues to grate on me, as it would any reasonable person. As if you can resist getting in a last shot on an adversary you haven’t the slightest idea how to defeat except with even more pressumptive condescention. Sad that you hold yourself in such high regard when your reasoning is so empty.
Thanks for joining the discussion? Precision counts? SHaky house of cards? Yawn. Try and give me, or any of us, something that shows depth enough to reason points unstead of kicking those ten times your superior in the pants as they exit, laughing. I mean, c’mon; this is Limbaugh’s “one brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.” Laughable.
Go reread your post and tell me what part of that desperate mudslinging warrants a reply? Do you raise a single point? Any substance in there? Have I somehow missed anything in all that name calling?
Sorry, Phoebe/Joanne, your supreme elitist arrogance is no mask for your intellectual weakness and bias. Like the typical Bush hater, you have nothing but what you can build on the backside of someone you haven’t the scope of character to deal with one on one, face to face.
So Phoebe, all you can muster is just another empty parroting of the half-concepts and rhetoric of your side of the fence and it bores me to tears. Should you ever develop the ability to actually reason points of debate, you may wish to try again.
There. Now you’ve been given copious intentional openings, a personally hostile message, AND a Limbaugh reference in reply to your sad little parting nonsense. Let’s see what a person of your character does with THESE fine opportunities…have a ball.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:37 AM
“Best of luck managing your dementia, and may your useless endeavors provide you with the illusion of purpose. And don’t forget to pack your lithium.”
Real classy. You are a real credit to the the right, and speak volumes about their integrity.
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:37 AM
“You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition.”
This may surprise some people (who don’t bother with facts), but France and Germany are already ‘on-board’ on the war on terrorism. They are participants in actions in Afghanistan.
Gee I wonder why they aren’t joining us in Iraq. Maybe because it was the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons?
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:47 AM
AMEN, Rich!
6Gun - What are we to make of your arrogant lambast? I was respectful and responded to your points in an orderly way. Your gaseous response reminds me of nothing more than the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the snarling head mounted on the wall, surrounded by jets of smoke, thunders, “Do not question the Great and Powerful OZ!” Once again you descend into belittling, obscure name-calling (who is Phoebe anyway?), violent verbal imagery…Zell Millerish slobbering comes to mind. Ten times my better? At what? You’re a real credit to the pro-Bush side. Look behind the curtain all you vaguely uncomfortable Republicans. This is the group that has taken over your party. Hint: they hate you too. Pay a visit to the Club for Growth web site among others. It will be a real eye opener.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:58 AM
Blah,blah,blah-blah,blah;“unless we keep the inevitable corruption of central power at bay by constant vigilance and the highest ethics,we’ll lose this experiment much the same way so many others before ours have been lost”.“Not by natural events or catastrophe,but by the weight of our own corruption”.
6-Gun.I had to go back to the start of your self-effacing tirade to find out if you were for or against Bush.Still not too sure when you use terms like highest ethics and I see that you are a Bushster.You must be a firm believer in that if you can’t bully them with facts then you should be able to dazzle them with bullshit.
I have stayed on the outskirts of this hard infighting,because I don’t have the ammunition of some of you people,I’m just a simple man,but I just had to chime in when 6-gun went on an on and on and on—-get to the bottom line dude!I haven’t had so much smoke blown up my ass since I was in basic training.I need to see my doctor about too much air up my rectum.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:04 AM
A Cry from an Arab American over the Russian Children
Nonie Darwish
www.noniedarwish.com
September 06, 2004
Among the Chechnyan terrorists that did the unspeakable in a Russian school yesterday were reported to be several Arabs. I am not surprised, but how many Arabs in the Middle East even try to connect the dots and link their current Radical culture of Islam to these unspeakable deeds around the world? They simply do not see the connection and unfortunately the world media is not doing its job in telling the Arab World about it. CNN feels that being “objective” is never to blame Arab culture and end up supportive of Arab views in its delivery of news in the Middle East and around the world.
Until age 30, I lived as a Muslim in the Middle Est. Horrible news such as those from Chechnya or other incidents in the Philippines, India, the Sudan or Pakistan, were always covered up and twisted to portray Muslim terrorists around the world as just victims of terrible discrimination. They were always portrayed as “freedom fighters” in the minority who need to rise against the majority Christian or non-Muslim population in their midst. The larger picture in these countries and the reasons behind the turmoil was never explained in any other way. I will never forget the prayers that many gave in support of minority Muslims all over the world who were believed to be the frontier for Jihad in spreading Islam in the “lost” world around them of Dar-El-Harb, the land of war to be conquered by the sword.
I once had a guest from Egypt in my home who was the most kind and wonderful man you will ever meet.
While watching Chechnya rebels on TV I saw him pray and cry for their success against the Soviet Union.
Praying for killing never seemed holy to me.
The World has been seeing Arab radical terrorism growing without much international outcry for half a century. I started seeing many men and women in my culture of origin turn into robotic monsters with a wish to destroy life on earth to go to heaven. Many thought it is only against Israel and its interests and ignored it. The World and its lazy media is not doing Arabs or the rest of the world any favor by sticking their heads in the sand like ostriches. Even after 9/11, many in the West and the UN are still finding excuses for terrorism.
Even the Arab’s best friends, the French, thought they will get special treatment from terrorists by selling out the US and supporting Saddam Hussein. But in the eyes of the terrorists the French were always just temporary friends until the right time came to strike; one enemy at a time.
Where are Muslim demonstrations against terror? All I noticed was celebrations in the Arab world after 9/11. Taking a stand against terrorism and for reformations in the Muslim world is viewed as an Israeli conspiracy. The very few courageous Arab writers who think and speak independently are often attacked and terrorized for their views, and accused of being puppets of the Zionists. Apparently standing strong against terrorism and for reformations in the Muslim world is viewed as “Zionist” conspiracy no matter how heinous the murders conducted by militant Islamists.
Since 1967 there have been thousand of Arab terrorist attacks. Israel had only one against the Arabs by a crazy man that was condemned by almost all of Israel’ s citizens. The Israeli government never tried the Arabs who beat the attacker to death after he surrendered. Yet I hear apologists for terrorism here cite that one incident as justification for the thousands and thousands terrorist attacks Israel and America over the years. Even worse, how many resolutions by the UN Commission on Human Rights condemning an Arab country for human rights violations have ever been proposed or passed? The answer is zero. But the number of Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations is 26. Imagine that.
Is there any doubt that much of the state-sponsored and culturally encouraged terrorism all over the Middle East by the Arab states is not a violation of someone’s human rights? Could it be that the UN is contributing to the problem?
After I saw the horror on the faces of the Russian children who looked malnourished and poverty stricken to begin with, I decided to make a stand against the Islamic culture of terror I grew up in and the madness resulting from its teachings. The intense and repetitive teachings of hate produce inhumane robots. Make no mistake about it, my motivation is out of love for the goodness in the Muslim world to prevail and that I do know exists. Accusing me of being part of a “Zionist conspiracy” is a joke at this point from the other side to cover up what is going on.
It is time for the world media and the UN to take a serious stand against Islamic, yes, Islamic, terror. The UN should immediately issue a very strong resolution condemning terrorism with serious consequences to Oil rich Arab countries that finance terrorism or teach that terrorists are heroes going to heaven. No “ifs,” “ands” or “buts” and no diluted language by the international media. The out-of-control culture in the Middle East needs a wake up call and a dose of reality. I cannot defend the cruel teachings and hate speech in my culture of origin any more. No other Arab with any integrity should. There is no cause in the world that should justify this insanity. I lived it and know what will end it. What is needed immediately is a united world stand against the Arab ‘s stagnant and barbaric view of the world and of themselves. The world cannot stand by, confused and equivocal about 9/11 and Islamic terrorism any more.
Please, America and the good people of the world, save my Arab culture of origin from itself.
Please.
It is time for the World media and the UN to make a serious stand against Islamic, yes Islamic, terror. The UN should immediately issue a very strong resolution condemning terrorism with serious consequences to Oil rich Arab countries that finance terrorism or teach that terrorists are heroes going to heaven. The out-of-control culture in the Middle East needs a wake up call and a dose of reality.
I cannot defend the cruel teachings and hate speech in the Arab world that I grew up with. No other Arab with any integrity should. There is no cause in the world that should justify this insanity. I lived it and know what will end it. What is needed immediately is a united world stand against the Arab ‘s stagnant and barbaric view of the world and of themselves. The world cannot stand by, confused and equivocal about 9/11 and Islamic terrorism any more.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:10 AM
Thanks to Ed! As usual, you cut right through the crap with no concern for the delicate sensibilities. I love that about you and I’m glad you’re standing in for Bernie while he drives the rest of the way to the first Kinko’s he can find in Atlanta. What passes for rational thought on the far reaches of the right is much like a fart: lot’s of hot air with a few microscopic particles of fecal matter to tease the nose.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:13 AM
US army to take back Halliburton’s $13bn contract after costs dispute
David Teather in New York
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
The US army is preparing to abandon a contract with Halliburton, the company formerly run by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, which has been investigated for allegedly overcharging it.
The contract to provide housing, food and other services to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, potentially worth $13bn (£7.2bn), is expected to be broken into smaller parts and opened to competitive bids in the next few months.
The Halliburton division awarded the contract, Kellogg Brown & Root, has been fighting a rearguard action against allegations of massive overcharging for much of the past year.
Last month Pentagon auditors suggested that the army should withhold payment of 15% of Halliburton’s invoices in Iraq, saying that the company had been unable to account properly for at least $1.8bn of the $4.3bn it had so far asked for.
The army is still considering the recommendation.
In a memo of August 25, cited by the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Tina Ballard, the army’s chief procurement officer, ordered officials to “immediately begin the transition to competitively awarded sustainment contracts for support of US military forces in Iraq.”
Halliburton has been swamped by controversy since it emerged that it had been given contracts to repair oilfields and give logistical back up to the army in Iraq.
To the Democrats Halliburton has become shorthand for cronyism and special interests in the Bush administration.
The logistics work was given to the company without a competitive tender under an existing 10-year contract to provide a wide range of contingency services to US troops.
The army is expected to invite tenders for six different contracts.
It is expected that they will include food services, housing and transportation.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said the company had expected the army’s decision.
“Such a transition is anticipated,” she said, “and planned for in all our contingency operations.
“Our contingency work in the Balkans was bid out in much the same way.”
She said Halliburton would review the contracts on offer before deciding whether to make a bid.
The memo is said to address the increasing frustration of army officers at the effort to reach a final estimate for the work being carried out by KBR.
One option apparently being considered is for the army to come up with its own quote.
Halliburton has accused its critics of using it to score political points against Mr Cheney.
But the company has provided the Democrats with plenty of ammunition.
Last month it admitted finding evidence that a consortium it leads had at least discussed bribing Nigerian officials to win a contract.
And it paid $7.5m to settle a claim by the US financial watchdog that it had failed to disclose an important accounting change during Mr Cheney’s tenure which allowed it to keep meeting Wall Street’s forecasts.
Special report
United States of America
World news guide
North American media
Media
New York Times
Washington Post
CNN
Government
US government portal
White House
Senate
House of Representatives
————————————————————————————————————————
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1299490,00.html
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:14 AM
Kerry is back in the race, says latest poll
Analysis of swing states gives challenger small lead
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
Forecasts of John Kerry’s political demise may have been exaggerated in recent days, and he could still be clinging to a narrow lead in the US presidential race, according to a poll published yesterday.
The poll, by Zogby International, reflected the state of play in 20 swing states, and found that the surge in George Bush’s support there after last week’s Republican convention, was less pronounced than the double-digits suggested in two weekend polls.
Those surveys, in Time and Newsweek, triggered alarm and finger-pointing in the Democratic camp, and a reshuffle in the Kerry team. But other surveys have since suggested the Bush convention “bounce” was much smaller and the contest remains a close one.
The Zogby poll says the president has made up ground in many of the 20 battleground states, but Mr Kerry retains a slim lead in most of them - enough to give him a majority in the electoral college, if the vote was held now.
The college, which chooses the president, is made up of 538 delegates drawn from the 50 states and Washington DC, according to population. Assigning electors according to the way each state is leaning now, the Zogby poll gives Mr Kerry a lead of 273 to 222, down from the past two months, but a significant edge all the same.
“There’s no doubt that Bush got a bounce ... but no way is he up 11 points,” John Zogby, the head of Zogby International, said yesterday.
Newsweek showed the Mr Bush with an 11 percentage point lead among registered voters, while Time gave him a nine-point lead. But another survey by Gallup, CNN and USA Today showed only a one-point advantage.
The confusion may reflect the volatility that follows the impassioned speeches and allegations made at conventions. It may also be explained by different surveying methods, and some of it is simply a result of polls being taken over the Labour Day holiday weekend, when many Americans are away from home.
Charlie Cook, an experienced US election analyst, said: “To be dependent upon getting a representative sample over a holiday weekend is enough to make any pollster wince. Polling conducted this week, after people are back from Labour Day and had a chance to digest the Republican convention, will be a far better test.”
US electoral history suggests that leads established at party conventions can often dissipate in the last two frenetic months of the campaign. Al Gore had a double-digit lead over Mr Bush after the Labour day weekend in 2000, but lost it after lacklustre performances in the three presidential debates.
Mr Bush, who had not previously shown much aptitude for public speaking, surprised many doubters by avoiding serious mistakes and scoring a few points in the debates. Mr Kerry must hope to do better than his Democratic predecessor in knocking his opponent off balance.
The Zogby results suggest the president’s emphasis on his role as a wartime leader at the New York convention helped him reassert control in traditionally conservative southern states where Mr Kerry had been making headway before August, such as North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. But elsewhere the Democratic contender is holding on, and in some states - Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico and Washington - has even strengthened his position since the attacks made on his fitness to be America’s commander-in-chief.
Matthew Dowd and Doug Sosnik, top strategists in the Bush and Kerry camps respectively, both predict that as the race nears the November 2 finishing line, money and manpower will increasingly focus on three large swing states, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which have a combined total of 68 electoral college votes.
Both candidates have been spending more and more time campaigning there. Mr Bush is due to inspect storm damage in Florida today before heading to Pennsylvania. Mr Kerry will be in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Both Mr Dowd and Mr Sosnik forecast that whoever wins two of the three big battlegrounds will probably be the next president.
At present, according to Zogby, Mr Bush is ahead in Ohio by 11 points. Mr Kerry has a smaller edge of three points in Pennsylvania. Florida is a dead heat, as it has been for much of the year. By that reckoning, this election could be fought and won once more in the Sunshine State, currently being pummelled by hurricanes, just as it was four years ago.
Full coverage
US elections 2004
Weblog
US Vote 2004
Interactive graphic
State by state guide to the elections
Archived articles
US elections 2004: archived articles
More US news and analysis
Special report: United States
Special report: US elections 2000
News guide
The US media
Useful links
Democratic National Committee
Republican National Committee
————————————————————————————————————————
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1299538,00.html
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:18 AM
It appears to me that Garrison Keillor is using the same type of rhetoric that he accuses the Republicans of using. He is an angry man - angry about his side not being in power. His words are hollow and full of lies that sound like truth.
I am not a staunch Republican and have been opposed to the foreign policy of the present administration and the domestic losses of freedom that are occuring under their watch. However, the anger and vitriol spewing from the mouths of folks like Garrison Keillor makes me wonder that President Bush may be on the right side of some of the domestic issues. You judge a man, not by his friends, but by his enemies.
Its great for Keillor to hearken back to the 1950’s. That time was unique in history. We had just won a major conflict without having any of the war actually touch our land (apart from Pearl Harbor). We were enjoying the spoils of that war in the 50’s. But the war changed the U.S.A. and society was ripped apart by the succeeding generation in the 1960’s. The Democratic Party ceased being the party of the little guy and took on every special interest it could sign up, no matter how perverted. The country has become polarized over these issues.
I could almost vote Democratic, except for the fact that the Democratic Party is defined by one issue now - a fanatical belief in the sacramental status of abortion. That is a defining issue and it loudly proclaims the difference between the two parties. The Democrats are the party of death, with little true concern for anything but petty convenience along with government largess for everyone who has their hand out. Keillor wraps himself in the constitution, but it is the Democratic Party that has found a way to twist the Constitution and abandon the principles of the Declaration - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - to condemn millions of unborn children to death at the hands of their mother. This “convenience trumps life” philosophy has turned our culture into a culture of death. When the Democrats stand up for all of life, including the unborn, I will begin to take them seriously on other issues. For now, all of their words ring hollow.
The Republicans are the party of life, with some semblance of restraint on the government’s power to confiscate any person’s wealth at any time and transfer it to another. Notice I said semblance of restraint. The Republicans have almost abandoned the ideals of limited and constitutional government. That is why I may not vote Republican this time, but am seriously considering the Constitution Party. It may be time to abandon the two major parties. Do either really represent us?
For Keillor to write as he has and not also condemn the Democrats, shows a petty anger. I see the same anger in all of the posts above. Everyone is just mad that their people aren’t in power. Hardly a one of the posts above show any sign that anyone is thinking, or even has the capacity to think rationally. We cheer when the other side gets a good tongue lashing without thinking about the words being spoken. Listen and analyze what Keillor is saying. He offers nothing constructive but a vicious rhetoric.
You may hate George Bush and his administration for a variety of reasons, but surely, the alternative is no better. And with the Democratic proclivity to embrace every perversion know to mankind, Bush is probably the lesser of two evils.
Posted by S. Geer on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:22 AM
Brooks, thank you for posting the artice by Nonie Darwish. Though I’ve asked that we respect the victims in the Chechnya tragedy, she has spoken with heart and conviction and, best of all, suggested a first step in stopping the madness. I am encouraged that her passionate plea suggests that the UNITED NATIONS be that first step, and I believe that if we could move to end our dependence on Middle East oil, and the well estabished connections between our own ruling class and the corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia, among others, we could occupy a credible leadership position in this effort. So thanks again for a great post.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:24 AM
a wonderful, but frighteningly true commentary on the state of affairs in the u.s.a. count on my democratic vote in november
Posted by gwyneth white on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:36 AM
There are some aspects of your opinion that are correct. I do believe that this country is driven by fear. It is why over 11,000 people are killed by gun violence each year and why the canadians only have numbers with double digits. They do not follow “if it bleeds..it leeds” strategy. That and along with the break down of the American family. I am a very strong Republican but I vote on issues, not people. The way you view Republicans as you stated…is wrong stereotyping. As is the way you believe Republicans view Democrats. What is so wonderful about this country is the fact that we are able to voice our opinions. And I do not believe that just because Kerry has served that it will make him a better President. Just because you have been to the grocery store doesnt mean you can be the manager. I have not heard Kerry say anything to sway my vote. And I have looked and I will continue. The only point he is trying to make is that he served and that he isnt George Bush. Alright we have it now…move on. It is the right of citizens every where to use there vote wisely. Research, research, research! Read articles that voice the other side, find the truth not opinion! Try looking at the facts with out a bias outlook. But no matter what…VOTE!
Posted by Mariah on Sep 8, 2004 at 7:56 AM
Please, someone, get this wonderful narrative to the Democratic Party,and Kerry. I hope too that Michael Moore is made aware of Garrison’s keen insight. It puzzles me that so many seem to be “under the influence” of Bush. He and his administration have truly “flipped” and in my opinion “flopped” during his reign of Fear and Lies.
Posted by Sally AndersonMoore on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:06 AM
Boy do you have it all wrong. The party of the rich today is the democratic party. Look at the big money movie stars, rock musicians, trial lawyers, even the democratic nominess for president and VP. All pay taxes at the lowest rates ie less than 10%-20%. They want everybody else to pay more. The anti-Bush campainers haave raised 62 million compared to 0.5 million for the swift boat people.
Do you realize we have come through a recession brought on during the Clinton years? We have come through severe corporate scandals, a stock market bubble burst, engaged in a war not of our choosing, bailed out the airlines and travel industries, and are giving more money than ever to US National social programs. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
Stop the whining and be glad we have a president who is tryig to protect us all.
Posted by Joe on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:17 AM
Moderates4Truth wrote: “He did. And the Navy records and various media investigations and eyewitness accounts already shot the SWIFTVETS credibility to nil. Can’t believe you guys are still beating this dead horse.”
—————
Well, I’m afraid I have some news for you that will prove to be rather distressing: The “horse” isn’t dead!
1) It is not the media’s job to discredit the Swift Boat Vets, nor is it their job to promote their claims as true. What IS their job is to investigate their claims, FULLY and OBJECTIVELY, and report the facts. But from the very beginning of the controversy the media automatically treated the Swift Boat Vets as though they WERE liars, and all of their coverage was run through this filter.
2) There are 254 Swift Boat Vets for Truth but barely more than about a dozen guys for Kerry (not a terribly good ratio). Now, the “fog of war” can clearly account for some of the inevitable discrepancies on both sides, but when you have a media reporting only on a few minor discrepancies of ONE side (the side they don’t like), overplaying them, and then ignoring the discrepancies of the other side, then what you end up with is people like you that live in blissful ignorance.
3) Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?
4) Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to withdraw the claim that he spent Christmas of ‘68 in Cambodia because the evidence has shown that he was lying?
5) Are you unaware that Kerry talked about receving news of MLK’s assasination while “in country”, although as it turns out MLK was assasinated before Kerry had even enlisted?
6) Are the Swift Boat Vets lying about John Kerry when they actually show video of Kerry giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of propaganda, both in the Dick Cavett debate and in his congressional testimony. American men were still being tortured in POW camps while Kerry was doing this, it’s all on video and in the congressional record. He slandered and smeared these men, has yet to apologize for it, and now turns around and whines that Bush is on a smear campaign.
7) Are you unaware that John Kerry has acknowledged that he met with representatives of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in Paris in 1970 and then afterward urged congress to accept Vietnamese proposals. Are you unaware the this is a violation of the Logan Act AND the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
8) Are you unaware that John Kerry began his political career as an antiwar activist, but that now he has done a complete 180 degree spin and presents himself as a war hero?
9) Here is a question that has been submitted in writing to the Kerry camp which has not been addressed:
On May 6, 2001, on Meet the Press, you stated that you had committed “the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers” in violation of the Geneva Convention. Specifically, you said you burned villages and “used 50-calibre machine guns, which [you] were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.”
a. Who ordered you to use 50-caliber machine guns on people?
b. How many people did you shoot with the 50s and how many of them were killed or wounded?
c. When and where did these shootings occur?
d. What other atrocities did you commit and when?
e. Which village(s) did you burn down and when?
f. Were any of your crewmembers present during the commission of any of these atrocities?
g. Did you order them to participate in the atrocities? Did they follow your orders?
h. Why were there no reports of these atrocities? Did you order your crew not to report them?
i. Are any of these incidents described in your Vietnam journal? If not, why not?
j. Did you observe thousands of (or any) other troops committing atrocities? When, where and what kind? Did you report them? If not, why not?
k. In light of your admitted atrocities, if Abu Ghraib guards found guilty of abuse should receive prison time and be stripped of command, why do you believe you should be considered for commander-in-chief?
10) Here is another question submitted to the Kerry camp in writing which has not been addressed:
You have consistently stated that you “never, never” attended the November 1971 Kansas City meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate six pro-military U.S. senators was discussed. Several newspapers reported that when confronted with FBI surveillance reports, your campaign “all but conceded” that you were in attendance , but claimed that this was a mere “footnote in history.”
a. Were you there?
b. Did you discuss the assassination of U.S. senators? What did you say?
c. Did you vote upon such a plan? How did you vote? Were any similar plans discussed by your group at any time? What were they?
d. If the plan was voted down, what steps did you take to insure that supporters of the plan didn’t carry it out anyway?
e. Especially considering that this took place in an era of political assassinations and assassination attempts (Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., George Wallace, etc.), did you report the discussion to any law-enforcement authorities? If not, why not?
f. When did you resign from the organization?
g. Do you dispute reports that you continued as a spokesman for the organization for more than a year after the Kansas City meeting?
h. If this was a mere footnote in history why have you repeatedly and vehemently denied you were there?
i. Did your campaign, as alleged in several newspaper accounts, attempt to get a witness to change his story about your attendance?
11) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.
On August 18, 2004, Judicial Watch filed a complaint and request for investigation and final disposition of awards granted to Kerry with the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy’s Board of Decorations and Medals. See the complaint by clicking here.
Senator Kerry’s DD Form 214 (a Defense Department form detailing a veteran’s service upon separation from the military) lists his “Silver Star with Combat ‘V’” and is posted on the Internet at JohnKerry.com. The Combat “V” device is never awarded with the nation’s third highest award for heroism.
Journalist Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times quoted a Navy spokesperson stating: “The Navy has never issued a ‘Combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.” Additionally, former Navy Secretary John Lehman was quoted with respect to the Silver Star citation as saying: “It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”
Furthermore, Senator Kerry’s records also reflect the award of a Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze stars. Military experts consulted by Judicial Watch believe Kerry’s brief tour of duty in Vietnam would have merited no more than 2 bronze stars on a Vietnam Service Medal. Many Swift Boat Veterans have questioned the circumstances of Kerry’s Purple Heart awards.
“There is something amiss in Senator Kerry’s service records. John Kerry should stop touting an award that has never been awarded to anyone in the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy needs to get on the ball and thoroughly scrub John Kerry’s service record by conducting a complete investigation of Kerry’s service,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And, of course, John Kerry may answer many of these questions by authorizing the release of all his service and medical records,” Fitton added.
12) From WorldNetDaily:
John Kerry’s biographer today called on the presidential candidate to release his military records and warned a Navy investigation into his medals could prove to be the “death knell” of his campaign.
In the past, Kerry has said he could not release some documents because of contractual obligations to Douglas Brinkley, author of “Tour of Duty.” Brinkley said he has no contractual claims to any of the papers.
“Clearly some of these military records should be made available to the press,” he said on Steve Malzberg’s WABC New York radio show today.
Brinkley also said that if the Navy investigation reveals deception in connection with Kerry’s medals, it could be the “death knell” for Kerry’s campaign. Professing uncertainty about what to make about the Swift Boat Vets’ claims, Brinkley said: “Right now it’s unclear. So we have to just wait to see what all this adds up to.”
“Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?” Brinkley wondered.
The Pentagon ordered an official investigation into the awarding of five Vietnam War decorations to the Massachusetts senator.
The London Telegraph says the inquiry is being carried out by the inspector general’s office of the U.S. Navy.
“It is the responsibility of all personnel to correct errors in official records,” a Navy spokesman told the paper. Another official said privately: “There’s a feeling that it’s time to deal with this thoroughly, once and for all.”
13) Why is it that whenever the Kerry camp is confronted with all this, all they can ever think to do is to change the subject by talking about George Bush? That’s called obfuscation.
14) Why is it that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, don’t find much of the above newsworthy? ALL of the above is independently verifiable and is thoroughly corroborated. Do you think, I mean, do you really think that if the above cited facts were true of George Bush, the media wouldn’t be all over it? Sheesh, the ensuing feeding frenzy would make your head spin.
—————
Ignorance is bliss, until truth wraps its unrelenting jaws around your windpipe.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:19 AM
Keillor should stick to humor and leave politics alone. It has long been known that Keillor’s politics ignore the self-reliance and determination of his first ancestors to this country, and instead favor socialism and the self-loathing advocated by Michael Moore.
The social policies of the political left, which began with LBJ, have been successful in bankrupting the country, morally and spiritually as well as economically. Such results should be obvious—even in Lake Wobegon.
Keillor should review the serious failures of his own political cause before throwing blame on W and the republicans.
Posted by Jerry Johnson on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:23 AM
Nice prose, Phoebe. Such a rich mine of opportunity; where did you learn to play all those leftwing cards, you crafty liberal you? They all of them on the table now?
“What are we to make of your arrogant lambast?”
Well, that’s up to you, Phoebe. I’m comfortable giving you opportunities, though…
Since you ask, first you might want to take a look at something—anything—of substance and get off that familiar leftwing cliches. I mean, that Bush Dynasty/Saudi oil stuff is catchy and all, but normal folks know that you could apply the same rhetorical device to any American president’s “relationship” with any overseas interest he/we find important.
About Bush, it would work like this: Bush is seeing to national interest by (1) keeping MidEast oil available, while (2) waiting for you treehuggers to agree to open up Alaska. Your call, Leftists. Gas ain’t over two bucks because Iraq started flying US flags now, is it? (And a hint: Take a look around at where we REALLY get our oil. It’s not your father’s Olds anymore, Phoebes.)
Now about Clinton, it would work like this: It seems Clinton took campaign cash thru Communist China, in violation of the law and without any interest but his own in mind. No Linkage to Onerous, Shady Foreigners implied by Big Media, of course, yet there is a fundamental difference between Bush and the Saudi “connection” and Clinton and the ChiCom Connection.
Little stuff like this makes it important to weild that rhetoric carefully.
See, I already also accept that you naturally (rhetorically) think I’m a gasbag and the Pubbies are a bunch of Nazis. We wear those badge with pride and have been for years, decades. I get that your mind rushes to these various Keillor-like enlightenments just ‘cause you’re a lesser-ability leftwinger. It’s your job and you take it seriously. Excellent.
That’s also my own approach to the Left’s mental illness, Phoebes, because the Left exposes it’s own simple collective idiocy for free. It’s like a no-work thing for us Vast Righty Conspirators.
See, we already get THAT part; Keillor made a complete ass out of himself all over again and used up all of your nouns and verbs and such. This is where you take it back down to reality and defend him, see? His wheels ALREADY came off; you’re in charge now.
“Your gaseous response” “nothing more than the scene in the Wizard of Oz” “descend” “obscure name-calling” “violent verbal imagery” “Zell Millerish slobbering” “credit to the pro-Bush side” “vaguely uncomfortable Republicans”
Phoebe, dig deeper. Heavy responsibility lies with you now. Your Etch-A-Sketch village idiot from Crawford with the Improper Ties to the Saudis is up ten points and you, personally, surely must have something to say aside from last year’s rhetorical stereotyping. Come on, girl!
But Joanne? Anytime you’re ready to unload real wisdom, I’ll listen. Promise.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:26 AM
Sally Anderson Moore wrote: “Please, someone, get this wonderful narrative to the Democratic Party,and Kerry. I hope too that Michael Moore is made aware of Garrison’s keen insight. It puzzles me that so many seem to be “under the influence” of Bush. He and his administration have truly “flipped” and in my opinion “flopped” during his reign of Fear and Lies.”
—————
Sally, in Michael Moore’s latest pseudomentary he makes a number of rather bold accusations against the President. If true, these facts would be monumentally scandalous for the President. Can you cite for me which of Michael Moore’s accusations in Farenheit 911 have been independently verified in the mainstream media? Can you explain to me how the combined and quite liberal news forces of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, et al have somehow not been able to verify the accusations made my Michael Moore?
And one last question for you Sally? Are you proud of the fact that Michael Moore has become the intellectual leader of the Democratic party?
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:35 AM
I know that this will get lost in the shuffle,but I have to say this.If and when John Kerry wins the next election he is unlikely to win the next.I say this because of how these things seem to work.Kerry will have to fight to find all the embedded moles that Bushites have put into place to control and manipulate the system.I’m referring to the appeals court justices and the lobbyists and others that have been put in the EPA,interior departments etc..He will not look good no matter how well he works to root out these Fifth collumists.He will find it almost impossible to turn our economy around and to reduce the fantastic debt that four years of Bush’s reign have fousted upon the american people.This will make him look bad,even though no one person with just one term could do any better.The republicans will fight him tooth and nail and constantly bring up past failures and current failures.They will put innumerable roadblocks in place to slow down any kind of possible upswing during the Kerry years.Just so that they can get back in the SADDLE again.This has always been so in politics.It would take three or four terms of democrars to right this ship,the USS AMERICA,and then you would have to contend with corrupt officials in the democrat party.I try to be a realist which is why I am saying these things.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.Unfortunately,our whole thought processes have to be re-vamped.I believe that we have gotten so complacent and worn down by years of corruption that the american people feel that there is nothing that can be done to stop power mad corrupt officials.I truly wonder if we have it in us to clean house, maybe give up some of our laid back cushy feelings,and get down and get dirty and WORK to make a change in this country.Some people have brought up that we,all of us,need to get involved in politics at the grass roots level and work for a change.I believe that that is true.We need to not focus on money so much that we forget that money is why we are in this state of affairs.We need to concern ourselves with people and what we really need to live and prosper.Quality food,and housing and clothing and education to name but a few.We need to remember that those people that we are fighting want the very same things that we want.Food,a job,to raise their children in peace,and the vision of a future without war.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 8:45 AM
The rightwing nuts on this board cannot defend the cronyism and corruption present in the Bush administration. Ideology doesn’t trump the facts.
The public is being swindled in so many ways it is unbelievable.
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:06 AM
There is a massive and growing Islamic death cult in the world. UN resolutions and verbal condemnation won’t make it go away. Moral labeling won’t touch it. Any policy that permits its continued survival effectively condones it.
In its 9/8/04 weekly update, Cliff May’s Foundation for the Defense of Democracies reports, “An estimated 20,000 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban government during the 1990’s according to US intelligence. German intelligence estimates the number at up to 70,000.”
We know that these trained terrorists:
1) Are a death cult,
2) Recruit children to commit suicide to further the aims of the cult,
3) Are not capable of being rehabilitated,
4) Are mentally invested solely in their metaphysical beliefs,
5) Are disconnected from objective cause and effect,
6) Have a primary goal of inflicting asymmetric damage on non-believers,
7) Would prefer to have low level recruits do the dying for the cause,
8) Live proximate to the groups from which they recruit.
Our options:
1) Tolerate them.
2) Kill all of them.
3) Kill the groups of people from which they recruit.
Under option #1,
a) Innocent people get killed by the cult.
Option #1 is unacceptable.
Under option #2,
a) There are too many of them.
b) They operate invisibly to western eyes.
c) As long as some zealots remain the cult will continue to regenerate.
d) Innocent people get killed by the cult.
Option #2 is unacceptable.
Under option #3,
a) Groups of potential recruits can be located and killed.
b) Targeted groups would see the cult as determinative of their collective future.
c) Cult members would witness the consequences of their actions against third parties result in the destruction of their own recruitment base, basically making the cult accountable to people they are proximate to.
d) The supply of future recruits would dry up.
e) Targeted groups would reject the cult and actively persecute it.
f) Without new recruits the key players would only have the option of self-destruction to fulfill their metaphysical imperatives.
g) The cult would become self-limited and would die out.
h) Innocent people would get killed by anti-cult forces.
i) Killing innocent people offends Christian sensibilities.
j) Foreign policy that offends Christian sensibilities would be used to inflict political damage by the party out of power in the U.S.
k) Targeted groups would pressure their governments to strike back at the U.S. economically.
Option #3 leads to a conclusion. It is basically a policy of strict politically incorrect cultural accountability. This option could be implemented with a mixture of threat and action, with an emphasis on threat, but with sufficient action to substantiate resolve. Once begun there could be no turning back.
Note that under all 3 options, innocent people get killed. This is the essence of the death cult dilemma. There is literally no living with it.
Do any of you moderates on the board have another solution that takes into account the above factors, and that leads to a terminus for the death cult?
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:10 AM
“But from the very beginning of the controversy the media automatically treated the Swift Boat Vets as though they WERE liars, and all of their coverage was run through this filter.”
You know what they say, fool me once, fool me twice…
“There are 254 Swift Boat Vets for Truth but barely more than about a dozen guys for Kerry (not a terribly good ratio).”
Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true. If they ‘served with Kerry’ how did 254 people fit on a 5-man SWIFT boat, even in shifts? The fact that their stories contradict each other do not help their cause. As you know, 9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me.
“Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?”
So? It still qualifies by Navy standards. Many purple hearts are awarded that way. Are you aware that Kerry earned 4 other medals?
“Are you unaware that Kerry talked about receving news of MLK’s assasination while “in country”, although as it turns out MLK was assasinated before Kerry had even enlisted?”
Nope, 4/68 Kerry was on the USS Gridley during the WESTPAC tour off Vietnam. That still qualifies as ‘in country’ by military standards, else you’re saying our navy personnel never served in Vietnam. Also, Kerry had been in the Navy since 8/66, did you know that? He’s an officer, he doesn’t ‘enlist’. You guys are just grasping at anything.
“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.”
Ah, Judicial Watch, another fake impartial right-wing site. Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’, only a Silver Star. It looked like a clerk’s typo on the citation. Again, making something out of nothing.
“Why is it that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, don’t find much of the above newsworthy?”
Maybe it’s because it’s not factual or news-worthy? Man you guys are paranoid. You think all these media would miss a nice juicy story? As they say, if it’s a couple persons, it’s probably them. If it’s many persons, it’s probably you.
“If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about them.” - Adlai Stevenson
Posted by Moderates4Truth on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:16 AM
OK Brooks - You’re good at framing. That’s a PR technique for those of you who don’t live in the world of corporate marketing. It can be tactically brilliant and simultaneously strategically flawed, even fatal.
Here’s how it works: Brooks tells you we have three options.Then he goes on to give an illusion of having considered all possible points of view, ending with the one he favors. This is almost always the most nuanced and complex, the most detailed and complete. That’s how the framing game is played.
Only one problem: there are more than three possible solutions. Among the many other options are inevitably some that will work effectively, but they don’t fit the PR goals embodied in Brooks’ post.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:27 AM
Ed wrote: “I know that this will get lost in the shuffle,but I have to say this.If and when John Kerry wins the next election he is unlikely to win the next.I say this because of how these things seem to work. Kerry will have to fight to find all the embedded moles that Bushites have put into place to control and manipulate the system.”
—————
Ed:
Moles?
From Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
Mole - a spy (as a double agent) who establishes a cover long before beginning espionage; broadly: one within an organization who passes on information.
——-
Well if you know of such moles perhaps it won’t be an altogether difficult task for President Kerry to ferret them out. But in the meantime, why don’t you provide us with an expalanation of who and where these moles are? How you came to know of their existence? And exactly how do they “manipulate the system”.
And lastly Ed, I want to a make you aware that the wonders of medical science have made significant inroads in developing effective treatments to combat paranoia.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:32 AM
Joanne,
I repeat, do any of you moderates [and I used that term loosely which is probably why you missed the question] on the board have another solution that takes into account the above factors, and that leads to a terminus for the death cult?
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:33 AM
No one holds the answers to fanatics who want to kill. If you set a hornet’s nest on fire, an escaping hornet will fly into your eaves and burn your house down.
Many people are profiting from war and that is shameful.
Our own army is being swindled by Halliburton.
Fear and paranoia will destroy-ya.
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:36 AM
Joe - I think you may be confused about some tax issues, and please don’t take that as an insult because it is not intended as such. The high income people you cite, by voting for Kerry, will be voting to increase their contribution to the national treasury. Kerry has proposed rolling back the recent tax cuts only on individuals making more than 200K per year, and extending additional tax cuts to those earning less than that. I’d like you to visit a web site: www.responsiblewealth.org
This will help you understand how some of the country’s wealthiest individuals are responding to the Bush tax cuts and their devastating effects on our long range economic prospects and the resulting impact on our future as a nation. There are many wealthy individuals on both sides of the political divide. It’s important to see that, and I think you will find it interesting to hear the point of view of those who have enjoyed the most advantages to speak to the issue of wealth and responsibility.
I personally find it appalling when our president states, as he did last week, that there’s no point in trying to tax the wealthy as they will just use accounting tricks to avoid their obligations anyway. This tars all people of means as tax cheats, then laughs at it as if it’s an inside joke. All I could think when I heard that was another of my mom’s old favorites: “Speak for yourself.”
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:39 AM
One disturbing thread addressed by Keillor and many who posted is how many people (“minimum wage earners” etc.) who are harmed by bush-republican policies actually support these frauds. I believe it is a function of literacy and intellectual curiosity. Like Bush, they too lack a sense of history, critical thinking skills, even a rudimentary knowldege of policy and politics. A subliterate electorate is swayed by a subliterate president. Such people will never understand why the working class, and not just the academic left, supported Bobby Kennedy. They do not know how close this country came to being ruled by a wealthy oligarchy before FDR and the New Deal. Nobody even questions that the public airwaves are sold out to corporations, who give us reality TV and commercials that poison our children. Keillor, bless him, has masterfully woven various threads into a whole tapestry - something impossible to accomplish without literacy and history.
Posted by Chuck Martin on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:40 AM
“Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true. If they ‘served with Kerry’ how did 254 people fit on a 5-man SWIFT boat, even in shifts? The fact that their stories contradict each other do not help their cause. As you know, 9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me.”
—————
Ah, the fallacy of the Strawman argument. Where in fact did I say that “if a lot of people say something it must be true”? No sir. What I DID do was to point out that you have a lot more veterans saying that Kerry is lying sack of shit than are standing up for him. Like it or not, that IS significant, and DOES warrant an investigation - an OBJECTIVE one.
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.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:42 AM
6Pack - Now I’m crafty, eh? Well, I guess that’s something, but coming from you I’m sure it’s not a compliment :-). That would be truly alarming.
So much steam is usually the indication of some very hot water.
Now, genius, link us to a single reputable poll that shows Bush up by 10 points anywhere but in his and your moist dreams of empire.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:44 AM
> No one holds the answers to fanatics who want to kill.
This is circular reasoning. One must look for a solution before a solution can be found.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:45 AM
Thank you. Unfortunately, you are likely preaching to the choir. There seems to be an endless supply of citizens who either don’t care to learn, or simply don’t care, about the lies and treacherous deceits. They only care about simplistic rhetoric promising a rosy future, and do not appear willing to hold the Republicans responsible for the problems they have created.
Last week, on the day Cheney embraced gay relations and the Republican platform called for the aboltition of any recognition of gay relationships, the head of one of the “family values” organizations appeared on television and stated the situation quite clearly. He denounced Cheney’s statement, stating that prohibition of gay marriage and abortion were more important to his people than health care, the economy or anything else. One cannot make inroads into the minds of the single-social- issue voter. That is the crux of the Reagan revolution: convincing southern, western and midwestern blue collar workers that they have more in common with a white multi-millionaire who hypocritically espouses “traditional” values than they do with a black or hispanic blue collar worker.
All we can do is speak out and vote. Again, thank you.
David Kirsh
Posted by David Kirsh on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:50 AM
Scott - I’ve been watching the Swift Boat thing carefully because I live in a swing state and, unlike most of the country, I’ve actually seen their ads. Can you acknowedge that Kerry has had his service in the Navy questioned and scrutinized repeatedly over the past 35 years? Are you willing to concede, as have many of the SBVfT’s that (a) they didn’t actually serve with Kerry in the sense that they ever laid eyes on him and (b) they are still very angry at him for his anti-war activities? Are you willing to consider that this anger, which is as legitimate as any emotional response, could play a role in their willingness to make statements about his service in the US armed forces? Let me know.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:54 AM
Part I
[MN]
“It remains to be seen whether the Islamists in Chechnya will drive Russia closer to the USA. Certainly Putin has his hands full. The jihadi there have delared their intention to establish a Caliphate in the Caucasus:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php
(scroll down to the “interview”) “
[G]
I read it. An eye-opener. It may also be useful for galvanizing that part of the world against Al Qaeda specifically, not just Chechen separatists, who are more of a mixed bag, IMO.
[MN]
“Meanwhile, the French have responded to Russia in their usual high-handed way:
“Indeed, we want to express both our solidarity over this act of terrorism against Russia but also we want to have all the necessary information and we remind Russia every time we meet of the need to respect human rights,” Raffarin said.
“It is natural that solidarity in the face of terrorism is balanced by this requirement towards our partners,” he added.
—French Prime Minister Raffarin
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06528713.htm “
[G]
The kind of thing to say _in_ _private_, IMO, not in public when we are confronted with this horrifying slaughter of innocents. SHEESH. Talk about a tin ear.
Granted, what certain functionaries did over here wasn’t exactly timely either. On the one hand, I have to partly agree with the “Old Europe” remark and such, but saying things like that publicly when cobbling together the most important alliance for freedom of thought in over 60 years, IMO, remains tin-eared too—and it had unfortunate consequences. Still, it is not comparable to a statement like Raffarin’s when addressing a massacre of these dimensions!!!!
It’s like saying to someone whose spouse has just died from a destroyed liver, “Oh, but you know there was just too much booze around in the house.” How insensitive and boorish can one get?!
I feel that, in general, one problem through much of the world today is an almost wilfully tin ear in many things. It’s almost as if a wilful disregard of others’ feelings is a badge of honor, a certificate of being macho, rather than sheer incompetence. Yuk. Clearly, the French are as guilty of this as we are, possibly more so.
[MN]
Go to news.google.com and search on <French Putin>. It isn’t pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3682-200 04Sep7.html “
[G]
Look, I’ve never exactly regarded Putin as a poster boy for democracy. He was a big wheel in the communist KGB after all! No question, his treatment of the press, etc., has been regressive after the reforms of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc.
But if one’s countrymen have just sustained the most deadly Al Qaeda massacre since 9/11, I suppose one is entitled to a bit of mouthing off. Yes, it may be inevitable for some to ask whether or not certain Russian excesses like the razing of Grozny, etc., may have radicalized the situation. One can’t really blame a reporter for raising the question. But likewise, in the first flush of grief and bitterness, I’m not disposed to blame Putin for losing it when the subject inevitably comes up.
Both people here were being all too human: a reporter just doing his job, and a leader, however flawed, convulsed by disgust and grief. In any case, I don’t measure reporters by the same behavioral yardstick as I do public officials. Their jobs are different.
[MN]
“Paraphrasing a comment I saw on the web: “As enemies, the French are no problem, but as allies, they are treacherous.” “
[G]
Candidly, this kind of broad-brush statement regarding any people always makes me uneasy. The fact that functionaries in a French government are behaving in a two-faced manner does not necessarily warrant extending that description to a whole people. I still feel, at the end of the day, that each people are made up of essentially the same mix as all others. Stereotypes—like Polish are stupid, Americans are boorish, Jews are greedy, Italians are horny, Africans are lazy, Russians are drunkards—rub me the wrong way and have caused too much unpleasantness throughout history not to be challenged, IMO.
I recognize that you did not cite this remark in such a spirit, but that remark itself has always made me a bit queasy, frankly.
[MN]
“If they did join the coalition, they would contribute less than 5,000 troops, that’s all they can afford.
You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition. We differ there. Who needs them? “
[G]
Al Qaeda, that’s who. Not their governments but their open societies. Let’s not forget much of the 9/11 planning appears to have happened in Hamburg, not Afghanistan.
While it may be the case that both France and Germany are still engaged in the Afghanistan effort, I have no doubt that their being estranged from the leader of the alliance, President Bush, impacts in dozens of different ways, small and large, on their pursuit of the overall goal: eradicating Al Qaeda. How cohesive can any alliance be if at least two of its most influential members are on the outs with the overall commander?
Yes, I recognize, as others here have pointed out, that Continental Europe already has vast experience in coping with terrorist groups like Bader-Meinhoff(sp.?), and so on. But the vicissitudes of _attitude_, pure and simple, can still deplete such efforts, IMO, despite however many mechanisms there may be in use.
This war with Al Qaeda demands the most close-knit cooperation on in-depth intelligence and on a hundred associated things as well. Safeguarding European cities from becoming another Hamburg can only be achieved, IMO, by abandoning an essentially truculent attitude currently in vogue in both Paris and Berlin. Unless both these governments abandon that stance, vigilance will be compromised—again, IMO.
The classic image of a chain being no stronger than its weakest link comes to mind. Hamburg has shown that many Al Qaeda operatives thrive in industrial capitals where their activities can blend into those of the general population. Only _one_ apathetic democracy is all that’s needed for such operatives to establish a foothold in an industrial center. In this case, we have at least _two_! And they are two of the most cosmopolitan and resource-filled democracies anywhere—outside of the U.S., of course.
How can one choke off the oxygen for Al Qaeda operatives effectively without every industrialized democracy, without exception, being 101% vigilant? Right now, I remain skeptical of France’s and Germany’s true attitude because of their truculence. I can’t help that. That gives Al Qaeda operatives the oxygen they need, IMO.
[to be continued]
Posted by Geoff on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:56 AM
Part II
[MN]
“We don’t need to get in a twist negotiating with France and Germany for permission to protect ourselves against terrorism, and against those who would supply terrorists with nukes. It’s futile. It will sap our energy and our will. If they want to follow our lead, that’s wonderful.”
[G]
I’m not talking about asking their permission for us to protect ourselves. I’m talking about giving them the proper wake-up call to protect their own cities, so Al Qaeda can be guaranteed deprivation of oxygen over _there_. This has to do with the dangers Europeans themselves may be exposed to if they don’t approach the dangers threatening them more seriously.
I forget where, but somewhere I read of some television comedian, either in France or Germany, who openly scoffed at the dangers posed by Al Qaeda—and who was vociferously applauded. That misbegotten mindset is what has to be addressed more seriously by the commanders of the alliance—and in this case, those commanders just happen to be the United States. The buck stops here.
I’m not talking about censoring such comedians at all. I’m talking about a more public and serious way of addressing a strain of skepticism in those two countries right now that I find truly alarming.
In fact, if certain Continental European state capitals approach the dangers threatening them in too half-hearted a way, that also impacts dangerously on us as well. Qaeda operatives there and separate Qaeda cells can operate with more impunity there (vide Hamburg) in planning further attacks over _here_, as well as attacks over in Europe. Thus, our own national security requires that governments like France’s and Germany’s be less truculent than they are today. Not only they are threatened by their attitude problem. We are too. So we have to work to change the attitude. It’s that or more Breslans(sp.?), both here and abroad.
[MN]
“Our opponents, the Islamist jihadi, have a clear and non-negotiable view of what they want to accomplish and we need to be similarly steadfast.
The French and Germans have 5 - 10% muslim populations, causing them significant security concerns. It will be some time before the Alliance forms again, but form it will, once the attacks spread to France and Germany. The governments in both countries are already in trouble, as is Russia’s. Don’t tell me terrorism doesn’t work. “
[G]
Of course, terrorism works. That’s one reason why it galls me that people in France and/or Germany may have to die before the kind of proactive measures we have seen in Britain, for instance, are adopted. Must we sit back and let France/Germany have their own Breslan(sp.?) before their governments take this seriously? Do their people deserve that?
I have been to both France and Germany, and I have met some wonderful people there. Why do they have to undergo some horrendous tragedy before their truculent governments are persuaded of the gravity of this threat? Can’t we try harder to forestall the horror that may be coming their way? Try harder to make their governments see reason?
[MN]
“Whoever wins in November, we must pull together as a country. But I’m voting for Bush and his team as being the best to lead us through this, and I hope you will, too”
[G]
Well, I will take another look at Bush if he can pull off a real strengthening and multiplying of the alliance before Election Day. We will see.
I would also like to add that I am a fiscal conservative, and I am not too happy with the rather alarming deficit that’s developing. Yes, I know that Kerry is not a poster boy of fiscal responsibility. But at least he’s addressing this problem (a tiny, tiny bit), whereas Bush, IMO, hasn’t really addressed it seriously at all. He tends to repeat certain generalities and then moves on—that’s my impression, anyway.
Still and all, a much-strengthened alliance remains my chiefest concern of all, since I don’t believe the people of Continental Europe deserve another Breslan(sp.?) and I believe it essential that Al Qaeda have its oxygen 101% cut off.
Look, I want to thank you for engaging me in this patient way, since I am sometimes quite an ornery and pesimistic kind of guy. It just irks me that a clear and present danger like this one cannot be addressed in a more concerted and close-knit way by all concerned.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:58 AM
I wrote: ““Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?”
And M4T replied: “So? It still qualifies by Navy standards. Many purple hearts are awarded that way. Are you aware that Kerry earned 4 other medals?”
—————
Acutally, sir, a self-inflicted wound DOES NOT qualify by Navy standards. It has to result from enemy fire.
Actually, sir, Kerry fostered the idea that it had occurred under enemy fire.
Actually, sir, some of his other medals are suspicious and there is already a full investigation underway. I already pointed this out. Don’t ignore that I did.
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”?
Are you unaware that your spinning?
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 9:58 AM
“Nope, 4/68 Kerry was on the USS Gridley during the WESTPAC tour off Vietnam. That still qualifies as ‘in country’ by military standards, else you’re saying our navy personnel never served in Vietnam. Also, Kerry had been in the Navy since 8/66, did you know that? He’s an officer, he doesn’t ‘enlist’. You guys are just grasping at anything.”
—————
Yep! Read the quote by Kerry. You’re spinning again.
You get into the semantics of the word “enlist”, and then you turn around and say “You guys are just grasping at anything”. You should probably avoid doing in the previous sentence something that you accuse the other side of doing in your following sentence. If you wanna play “gotcha” with the word enlist, that’s fine, but you still have to deal with the following:
John Kerry (in a prepared speech at an MLK celebartion in 2003): “I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam, when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King.”
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.
Today’s lesson: This is yet another Kerry “discrepancy”. One, that if instead were true of the Swift Boat Vets would lead to the inevitable “See, they’re all a bunch of big fat liars”.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:17 AM
Define “reputable” polling, Phoebe. (While you’re at it, define “moist dreams of empire” too, if it’s not just more of your wincingly cute and disposable prose. Wait! Are you Keillor?)
Leftist preemption being what it is I just want to be sure of the “precise” nature of the language. Wasn’t that about how you once put it?
Remember, keep it substantive. Us mouth-breathers already get the nuanced rhetoric.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:23 AM
MT4 wrote: “Ah, Judicial Watch, another fake impartial right-wing site. Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’, only a Silver Star. It looked like a clerk’s typo on the citation. Again, making something out of nothing.”
—————
1) Trying to change the subject from John Kerry to your take on Judicial Watch is a transparent attempt at obfuscation?
2) Would a negative claim against John Kerry have to come from a left-wing group for you to take it seriously? If that were the case, then conveniently enough for you, NO claim made against him is to be taken seriously.
3) 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.
4) You also didn’t address the other discrepancies cited in the complaint.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:28 AM
What’s the matter Scott? Is that one section of my little piece the only thing that you liked?
I know that some one more famous than I,to paraphrase said ,that a little paranoia is a good thing. So,I don’t worry about a little paranoia,Scott.
I don’t like a lot of name calling Scott.I used Bushite to indicate some one who is in service to King George Bush.As for moles,if you knew who and where they were than they wouldn’t be very good moles then,would they.I do have one example of an attempt to put in place a federal appeals court justice in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,which is responsible for cases heard from Alaska and the american west,and environmental law for 485 million acres of public lands. William Myers,was chief attorney for the Bush Interior Department where he helped shape the weakening of Administration policys on the Endangered Species Act.He also contributed to the curbing of federal protections to prevent destructive mining and overgrazing of public lands.Before joining the Interior,he served as a lobbyist for the National Mining Assoc..Myers was executive director of the Public Lands Council,a trade association promoting the interests of ranchers who graze sheep and cattle on public lands,and director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
Not a single member of the American Bar Association’s committee that rates federal judicial nominees found Myers “well qualified.“More than a third rated him “unqualified.“This is just one example of the fox guarding the chickens.
Well,maybe another example of what Mr.Bush thinks and feels for the environment.William HaynesII,the Pentagon’s top lawyer,who advanced the memorable argument that when the U.S. military bombs migratory birds on an important Pacific ocean nesting island,birdwatchers should be pleased.
Under Haynes’ reasoning,he wrote in a legal brief,killing birds makes them more scarce,and"bird watcheers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.“Haynes added that bombing was good for the birds too,since it protected them from"human intrusion.“The case was taken to federal court and the judge in the case rebuked Haynes and his team,writing “The Court hopes that the federal govenment willl refrain from making or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future.” Meanwhile President Bush has nominated MR.Haynes for a seat on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—a lifetime appointment.On his Senate questionaire,Haynes listed the bird-bombing case as the second most significant of his career.Where do you guys find these people? Now I admit that these two guys are not what you would call good moles,but they are just a tip of the iceberg for the number of embeds that certainly must be sprinkled througout the system.It will take years to get these leaches out of the system. Have a good day Scott.Peace and love,Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:40 AM
Scott, prepare for a personal assault. Your constant driving to the heart of the issue makes Leftists mad. Remember that their preferred media, like Prairie Home Village Idiot here, is images- and charicature-intensive; facts speak much less loudly than appearances to the Left. (Which came first, the intellectual chicken or the Keillorism?)
But seriously, you do well to expose the intellectual emptiness behind the Left and you’re good at it. Just as Phoebe/Joanne can’t and won’t answer Brooks on the most essential topic on the table, namely how to stay alive in an Islamofascist world, you likely won’t get much but more pointless crap about Kerry’s many documented lies.
And just as with the mentally unstable who cannot face the facts about themselves and their problems, all we’re likely to get from the Left around here are those images and fantasy and wordplay. Note Phoebe’s lead to Joe: Lead with the push to the face then offer the helping hand. No facts, just pure preemptive debate strategy.
With the ill it’s about the keeping of appearances. With the postmodern Left it’s clear it is too.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:42 AM
I wrote: “Why is it that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, don’t find much of the above newsworthy?”
And M4T replied: “Maybe it’s because it’s not factual or news-worthy? Man you guys are paranoid. You think all these media would miss a nice juicy story? As they say, if it’s a couple persons, it’s probably them. If it’s many persons, it’s probably you.”
—————
Ahem, but did you not earlier lecture me about a certain fallacy (which I did not commit), and I quote you, ” Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true.” Then you turn around, at your convenience, and say that “if it’s many persons, it’s probably you”. I hate to ask you to put your “nuance” aside for a moment, but can you please make up your mind one way or the other on whether or not this is fallacious argumentation.
But more importantly, this quote of dubious merit does not really address the ISSUES I raised now does it? More obfuscation. I think maybe you know by now that this is not really going to work on me.
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.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:48 AM
OK 6Pack. I’ll give you one more chance to make a complete and utter ass out of yourself. This is really fun, but I have other things to do to get out the vote for Kerry.
By the way, Ed, you’re doing a great job with Scott and my hat is off to you. It would seem to be a waste of time, but I’m counting on all the folks who read these things and don’t post to take something useful from these exchanges. I’m sure 6Pack and Scotty are with me on that!
6Pack - you pick the poll. Just give us the link, pal. Then we’ll shine a little bright September sunshine on it and see what we see. We’ll be waiting! Take your time - your guy may pick up a little today, who knows?
Does anyone out there know what or who “Miss Phoebe” refers to? 6Pack doesn’t want to reveal the source of this witticism, and I admit I am curious. I like to really *get* the insults hurled in my direction.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 10:54 AM
Phoebes, it’s just a little ironic subtlety; a minor guilt-by-association; that your self-esteemed place atop the seething masses of room temp-a-chure IQ, border-defendin’ Righties is so regal, so Miss Phoebe-like. Just popped into my lil ole rural mind, it did.
Think of it like your own personal version of…6Pack! Yeah, a Leftwing equivalent of all us truckdriver Pubbies out here practicisin’ our 6-gun slingin rights and such. Yeeha and she-it, maam.
As far as the polls go, Miss Phoebe, comb thru the last month and you’ll find all manner of “reputable” polls—including Time and Newsweak—placing the little shooter from Tex-ass up by, wait for it, eleven points.
More interesting to me, not being a Bush supporter as much as I’m a Kerry critic, is the inevitable Nov 4 outcome. Were I a bettin’ man, I’d put a thousand down on the table between us, Phoebes. Right next to Mom’s tea cup.
Oh wait, WAY more interesting to me, Phoebes, is your upcoming answer to Brooks: How DO we deal with A-rabs drivin’ jets into New York City highrises and sensitive government installations and Washington DC and goin’ an’ killin innocent folks?
Let’s drop the stereotyping, Joanne. I find your incompetence on the issue offensive to me as an American and a father. Until you can drop the bullshit and speak to the issues instead of using this place as your own little sounding board for half-baked ideas and feel-good nonsense, you can stick it. Four thousand of your countrymen, 75% on our own soil, died so far to protect your right to spit on their graves with your buddy Garrison K. A few hundred Russian SCHOOLCHILDREN were shot in the back.
And all you can do is prance around the issues. You make me sick.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:10 AM
Okay Ed, you win. I’m writing a letter today to the fine people at Merriam-Webster and also the ones at Oxford to let them know that you’ve singlehandedly redefined the word “mole” to include anyone having anything to do with the Bush administration that does anything you don’t like.
But I’m still confused by one thing: You say “if you knew who and where they were than they wouldn’t be very good moles then, would they”. Well then, how do you know that they exist? Do you understand that you, as the accuser, have to meet the burden of proof? The onus is on you.
Anyway, I know you’re not going to let any of these glaring contradictions get in the way of your irrational hatred for George Bush. And why should it? Your hatred trumps everything else, including the need for rational argument. You’re a good liberal Ed.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:12 AM
Under this administration my son almost lost his home. He was another skilled vetran who couldn’t find a job. His children had no health insurance. Almost a thousand of our young people have been killed and approximately 7,000 maimed in Iraq. Some of them live(d) in my town—and yours. The reason we sent those soldiers to fight is still a mystery. My 81 year old father—a WWII vet, couldn’t afford to live in a trailor park if he didn’t get his prescription drugs from the VA—and those vetran benefits are being whittled away every day. Seniors who have traditionally voted Republican need to look at what has been stripped from their own retirement benefits before going to the polls in November. Our children and grand children will inherit the biggest defecit in the history of our nation. The president inherited a surplus from the previous administration—and did initiate tax relief. Families like that of my son who have children DID get a tax rebate—my son’s was $1,000. Hmmmmm—and how much did you get Mr. Cheney?
The current administration has wrapped itself in the flag and called itself holy. Patriotic music fills the air and multimedia presentations of smoking ruins assalt our senses. But it would seem that a large part of the electorate can’t see that the very flag the bush adninistration drapes around it’s own holier-than -thou shoulders is the one being used to strangle not only our soldiers in the field—but us.
Posted by Patricia on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:15 AM
Excuse me: Three thousand died at home and another thousand died overseas in the Iraqi hellhole defending our rights to be complete whining jackasses. I’m so incensed at the sheer idiocy on the Left I misspoke…
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:16 AM
Our country was absolutely made great by angry people. He doesn’t think the people dumping tea in Boston Harbor were angry!!?? LOL!
Posted by Lorraine Arnett on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:24 AM
6Gun:
Thanks. And you’re right of course. I’ll be very disappointed if within the next few hours one of these geniuses doesn’t liken conservatives and/or the Republican Party and/or me to the Nazis. To be followed no doubt with whining about how mean-spirited we knuckle-dragging troglodytes have become. I really don’t know how much more of their noble intentions, tolerance, and nuance this country can withstand.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:25 AM
Grow up, Patricia. THIS government doesn’t owe you a damn thing but your freedom to say stupid things in pursuit of your own peculiar happiness.
The 03/04 deficit is bad due to war. The 100 year national DEBT is worse than bad due to leftist social programs to ninnies like you. Go look it up instead of whining.
Did you know that roughly 50% of the US GDP goes to taxes? How do YOU factor the difference between that impossibly large number and the paltry 300B that went into defending us from Islamofacism? From death from the skies in the form of thousands of lbs of raining fire?
Hadn’t thought that far, had you?
How about the fact that the largest coalition in the history of time mounted the action in Iraq? Or that nearly the entire damn Congress voted for it? And that some ninety percent of your countrymen insisted they do so?
How impossibly selfish can you be? How relativistic; how myopic; how self-serving? You’re what’s wrong with this country: You really don’t want a Constitutional Republic and rights and freedoms and RESPONSIBILITIES.
You want a King.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:26 AM
Well, well, well 6 - finally we find common ground. I have a Class A CDL with hazmat, tanker and double endorsements. So if you really are a trucker, stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it - but not til after your next wet test. I also know how to shoot a handgun and a rifle, so perhaps we also share those skills. I may be a middle-aged married woman, but one that may surprise you yet.
I would not find it hard to believe you are a trucker, having suffered through the inane psychotic chatter of your brethren on the CB in the middle of the night. On reflection though, I think it’s just another example of your tendency to employ stereotypes - favorite tool of the slow learner. Your increasing level of verbal violence is perhaps cathartic, but does nothing to enhance the dialog. You don’t like it when Keillor does it, so why not get up out of the mud?
For all you non-truckers reading this thread, allow me to also say that the majority of professional drivers are not brainless morons with the pathologies so evident in much of what 6Gun has written today. But some are, so leave a good interval, don’t drive next to them, and never cut them off for any reason. Just proceed to the next exit. They are, in fact, dangerous - particularly when they’re listening to Limbaugh and talking on their cell phones at the same time, all the while stuffing themselves from a bag of Cheetos on the dashboard.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:29 AM
This is perhaps one of the best articles I have read to date that sums up our current plight with the right mixture of angst, biting truth, and wit; in other words, some of the very characteristics lost on this current administration. Keillor is RIGHT ON THE MARK here, almost frighteningly so.
I can’t even bear to look at Bush speak, and listening to him is so painful now it’s almost impossible to endure. His words and body are almost completely disconnected. I sit staring at the screen, watching and listening in disbelief, wondering when I will wake up; more importantly, when will THIS COUNTRY wake up?
The very thought of another four years of this administration is almost unimaginable. Succinctly put, I dont think the World can take another four years of George Bush and handlers. Amazingly enough, the American populace eats this pap up. No matter what is said, no matter how bold the contradictions or implausibility, the American public seems to nod their head.
IS anyone really listening?
“Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.”
In a nation where less and less read and many that do are seemingly unable to separate the wheat from the chaff, the truth and subtle distinctions are lost in the haze of “chatter”. Patriotism is almost turned into a parody and the USA is #1 – God is on OUR side mentality heads to the front of the pack, trampling over any and all that question. Meanwhile, our nation is making some of the most troubling decisions I have seen in my lifetime. This next election is perhaps THE MOST important we have seen. If only I felt confident that good will come of it.
Posted by Kelly Holsten on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:34 AM
“Seniors who have traditionally voted Republican need to look at what has been stripped from their own retirement benefits before going to the polls in November.”
—————
I’m still waiting for someone to point out for me what part of the Constitution or The Bill of Rights tells us that it is the government that is responsible for the individual and not the individual.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:34 AM
Good one, Joanne. Caught on, have we? Parroting turnabout your new device?
Nah, you’re above that; I can tell.
So speak to the issues, provided that’s a suitable following act to Keillor.
Or maybe I’m expecting too much?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:36 AM
Kelly croaked:
“Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.”
No, Kelly dear; it’s written: “Republicans: The No.1 organization at recognizing the rest of the deaf, dumb and dangerous world needs work.”
News Flash: The US is sovereign. Don’t like it, move.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:41 AM
“...what part of the Constitution or The Bill of Rights tells us that it is the government that is responsible for the individual…”
The “Living,” non-contractural, make-it-up-as-you-go part.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:43 AM
Kelly wrote: “This is perhaps one of the best articles I have read to date…”
——-
Kelly, you need to read more. And by the way, it’s not an article, it’s a rant.
As for the rest of your post, thank you. At last, I’m finally starting to gain some insight into why exactly liberals can relate so well to John Kerry’s most notorious characteristic: Incoherence.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:46 AM
Kelly wrote: “This next election is perhaps THE MOST important we have seen. If only I felt confident that good will come of it.”
——-
Don’t worry Kelly. Good will come of it. And as a result you’ll be given more control over your own money and financial planning. Or is that somehow objectionable? If so, why?
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 11:55 AM
Just as I suspected, 6Pack. You’re shooting blanks. Big tough trucker, huh? Wanker is more like it. Get a job. I had one for years, you big baby, which is why I now have time to enjoy the fruits of my responsibly-lived life, which includes having intelligent disagreements with people who have the skill and brains to engage in something less disjointed than what passes for dialog in your circle of influence…which at the moment only seems to include other nutjobs like Scotty.
And BTW, what’s with the paternalistic tone? So far you’ve told me, Scotty, and everyone else what to do, how to respond, and how we should be living our lives in general. Scotty probably likes and needs that, but I’ll pass. Do you have any friends or do you just subject your immediate family and strangers on the internet to your pearls of wisdom? Still waiting for a link to a poll taken in the past 48 hours showing Bush 10 points ahead. Guess what! There aren’t any!
As to defining my terms - I’m speaking Engish, Dud (and no, that’s not a typo). You don’t know the meaning of moist? Look it up in the dictionary if you can find one.
If Kelly is as smart as I think she is, she will ignore you. As if you would even be able to get up a good rant if you tried. LOL
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:06 PM
Scotty boy take a deep breathe and go out and shoot yourself.
6gun why don’t you join him. You wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and kicked your tired ass. Lost little sheep, I feel so sorry for you, not!!!!
All of you tight righties haven’t got a clue. Your country is going away and you sit around arguing with people who would like to help all of us get it back. Your idiots X 10. The powers that be have all of you running in circles like good little sheep biting the guy in front of you instead of turning your attention to the one’s that tied you up in the first place. I have serious doubts that any of you are worth saving. Petty arguments about sideshow events. Could you be anymore brainwashed?
Anyone who can’t see that is what GK is trying to tell you then you are fools. Sure he has to pose it as a democrat(how else indeed!)but you should make an effort to see the big picture. It is you who can’t see the forrest for the trees. You pick at his words instead of thinking about what he is meaning. If I drew you a picture you would argue about the medium I used instead of appreciating the picture.
Yes it is time for a “We The People” political party, but in the meantime…....let’s take a step in the correct direction.
Yes I can not stand bush, I am a veteran, I was drafted and I served, need I say more. But I also have a very large disatisfaction for what he has done to this country and I where he has led us.
We the people stopped one bad war in Viet Nam and we the people will stop this one. We do not need to go to war to make things better for our country and the world. That’s a fact jack.
We should be all on the same side, not this constant arguing, dividing, hating. That is what bush has brought us. Not Clinton, not Kerry, not Gore. bush and the republican’s. We can and we will do better.
We are not safer now than then. All the data concludes that.
The country is headed in the wrong direction, all the poles support that.
Terrorism is on the rise world wide. Facts backed by numbers.
How many millions of jobs lost since gw appropriated the presidency? Fact (ps can the Clinton blame game boy’s, it’s a tried old record).
Failed No Child Left Behind program. Fact.
Failed presciption drug program. Fact.
Huge deficit. Fact.
GW will not change course. He says that.
Need anymore real “TODAY” reasons?
Try to concentrate on the task at hand today.
And by the way Scotty boy. You aren’t good enough to lick John Kerry’s boot’s. You can take all that crap and shove it you know where. Guy’s like you only need one thing to teach them a lesson about respect and that’s a good asskickin.
You probably have gotten away with bs like that all your life and someday you will have to pay. Your so full of yourself that you will eventually explode.
bush will loose again and this time the people’s will, will prevail.
Power to the People.
P.S. Here’s a paper written by someone to try and help some of you begin to see the forrest.
Wake up people.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=vidal
Posted by JIMBOY on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:08 PM
“News Flash: The US is sovereign. Don’t like it, move.”
How nice it is to see the trolls out in full force. Ignorance is bliss. Dont like it, move??? Nothing like the “love it or leave it” contradiction of EVERYTHING this country supposedly stands for. Do you always defeat your own argument within a single sentence? This takes a certain skill, I must admit.
As for Scott’s take on the incoherence of the rest of my post, this only speaks to his evident inability to actually discern meaning and innuendo, this within his own posts or others.
I wonder what twirls within your skull during one of the Bush press conferences? Perhaps the Bait and Switch of bin Laden - Saddam makes more sense…
Backing an administration that has actually made this world and OUR OWN COUNTRY a far more UNSAFE place by fueling the recruitment of terrorist hatred to a far greater level is not my idea support. When people like Pat Buchanan start saying the same thing, you KNOW you have to worry!
kh
Posted by kh on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:13 PM
Joanne said, “Only one problem: there are more than three possible solutions. Among the
many other options are inevitably some that will work effectively,...”
Sooooo…...a clue or two perhaps? You don’t need to take a lot of time or be verbose. What’s another option?
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:14 PM
No Scott,you must have misunderstood me.I said that you won’t be able to find the moles,because that’s their job.The references to the judges was just an example of what is on the surface of the cesspool not what you can’t see in the depths.Well,since you are the well of all knowledge,maybe you can tell me.Can moles live in a cesspool?Just curious.
Much like you Scott I don’t have to prove anything!I’m not the expert here Scott,that would appear to be the crown that you wish to wear.I can see that there is wrong on both sides of the aile here,but you only want to see that I just hate Bush,when it is crooked politicians that I really have disgust for.I have said that Kerry is just a tool to get a greater evil out of office.Then MAYBE we can work on the lesser evil and buy some time for honest and competant people to get into office and right this ship.
Oh,about that liberal thing.I pretty much have always been confused about that left and right and liberal and conservative thing and have pretty much ignored those particular lables.I just see it as it is,we are all mostly a combination of what goes on in our lives. I only look to see what does a persons actions indicate the kind of person that they are.I would like to do a little amateur psychology here.I believe that if everyone here were too ignore you that you would explode all over this site.I believe that you desire attention.You have that look at me,look at me,look at me,mentality.Hell,you probably don’t even care about politics.You just want to be the center of attention.Now it’s ok little boy.It’s ok to grow up.You’ll be ok.Mommy still loves you,even if you would be a failure.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:16 PM
Kelly, I’ll vote for John Kerry on one condition:
I want you to go look up everything John Kerry has said regarding the Iraq war, EVERYTHING, including his voting record. Then, reconcile the many contradictions (“nuance” in liberal speak), and tell us once and for all what his actual position on the issue really is.
And while you’re at it, do the same with his various bits of “nuance” regarding the Patriot Act.
And while you’re at it, tell us why we are obliged to submit our need for self defense to France for their approval.
Do this Kelly, and Kerry’s the man for me. The clock is ticking Kelly.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:23 PM
Islamofacism? 6gun in your hand, I’d say you sound more like a 3gun.
You sir are a racist pig. Why would any of us need to bother and compare you to the Nazi’s when you have so graciously made that comparison for everyone yourself. Nice job gunny boy.
And for all you bleeding pocket book right winger fascist out there that constantly want to dis our great country and it’s great people for wanting and having a society that helps it’s own people I have a suggestion for you. Get out of this country. Go start your own country and then you can have it the way you want it because we are always going to be people who care about other people.
Power to the People.
Posted by JIMBOY on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:27 PM
I was counting on you to bring up the lead in the wake of Keillor’s implosion, Phoebe. Here we go again:
“You’re shooting blanks…Big tough trucker…Wanker is more like it…Get a job…I had one for years, you big baby, which is why I now have time to enjoy the fruits of my responsibly-lived life, which includes blah, blah, blah.”
I so hate stopping to your level, Jo: I just asked you to produce a legitimate, substantive reply to a very pressing issue and you come back with ad hominem condescention full of empty ego. Score: Another one for the knuckle-draggers…and we didn’t even lift a finger.
“...nutjobs like Scotty.”
Yikes. I believe I predicted this, Scott? Personally I find your remarks well-researched, factual, penetrating, fair, and unavoidable. Which is evidently why Phoebe finds them infuriating to the point of reverting to her playground nightmares. You take that, Scotty, you big mean nutjob!
“Still waiting for a link to a poll taken in the past 48 hours showing Bush 10 points ahead.”
Thanks for the after-the-fact terms, Phoebe. I HAD asked for them, I admit. Now it’s 48 hour envelopes? Anything more? Only on Tuesdays? After 6?
“I’m speaking Engish…You don’t know the meaning of moist? Look it up in the dictionary…”
Reaching deep, are we Jo? You’re a wreck. lady. You’re speaking AROUND every softball handed you and you’re proving with every subsequent post you have no chops. You prove the dysfunction of dishonesty on the Left every time you open your month.
And about telling you how to live your life? You wish. Not on my radar except, Kelly-like, to suggest you figure out what kind of governance we have over here so as to not take the rest of us down when you vote yourself pure dependency. You’re damn right I’ll raise a stink about that.
“If Kelly is as smart as I think she is… LOL.”
Appealing to the stands for support again, Phoebe? LOL’ing your way into good graces? Familiar tactics…but pointless.
Still waiting, as I’m sure Brooks and Scott are, for substance, Joanne. Come on; you can do it.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:33 PM
Brooks, how about just dealing with the issue that you ARE attempting, lamely, to frame - and not with any original material, I might add. Now I am reasonably convinced that you are (a) sitting at home trying to make a living through some MLM scamorama, or (b) actually David Brooks, pantywaist conservative writer for the NYT. Who, incidentally, I find rather entertaining and creative, especially when he’s making shit up to sell a book like Bobos in Paradise.
I absolutely will not waste my time sharing my thoughts on this topic with you. Not a dodge of the issue, but rather an avoidance of yet another boring discussion where you refuse to respond and simply change the subject. I will be happy to discuss ideas on this topic with any other reasonable person, right or left. That lets you, Scotty, and 6Pack off the hook.
Oh, and since y’all don’t always have a firm grip on the English language, by ‘reasonable’ I mean cogent, coherent, responsive to others…even sensitive in the finest, most Cheneyesque sense of the word.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:35 PM
JIMBOY! Dood! Like, peace, man, and power to the people. Surf’s up, man; pass that doober. Let’s get high and [choke] like, “dis” some Nazis!
Dig it man, totally.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:37 PM
Scotty boy try reading the authorization that was voted on by the congress to give bush the right to go to war and then try and “fit” how he went to war into that reading (this is where the your bs starts).
So (and try to hang with me on this on scotty boy)if you ask me if I would vote again for this I would say yes but that I would do things differently. Try and grab that, I know it will be a struggle.
Good thing you weren’t one of Pavlov’s dogs cause you would have ran into that electrical shock until you were dead man.
I like a man that can learn and change his mind and a man that can think and chew gum at the same time. What to obscure for you scotty boy?
Power to the People.
Posted by JIMBOY on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:39 PM
Joanne wheezed:
“you are (a) sitting at home trying to make a living through some MLM scamorama”
Phoebes, girl! GET SOME NEW MATERIAL.
(Can’t speak for Brooks, but just so you know, both my concerns earn 24 hours a day, allowing me to pop in on your rich life here in Keillor’s Lake Woe-be-on on any whim.)
Remember; keep it real and substantive. Or us autopilot nutjobs will keep bustin’ your lame excuse for debate With One Brain Tied Behind Our Back(tm).
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:43 PM
Y’all, can we please ignore the gundunce, the beam-me-to-hell scotty, and babblingbrook? None of them deserve responses because of all the reasons above. Your civility will not be returned.
Thank you JIMBOY, Ed, and Joanne, my sentiments exactly!
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:43 PM
There are only two things that anyone needs to know about John Kerry and Viet Nam.
(1) He volunteered and fought.
(2) He came back and helped to end that very bad war.
Any and all other discussion is just a way for the right to distract from what their president has done to our country.
Posted by JIMBOY on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:44 PM
Ed wrote: “No Scott,you must have misunderstood me.I said that you won’t be able to find the moles,because that’s their job.The references to the judges was just an example of what is on the surface of the cesspool not what you can’t see in the depths.”
—————
Again Ed, and for the third time, if you cannot see these moles in the depths of the “cesspool”, THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE THERE? I hate to have to use all capitals on you Ed but I don’t know how else to make my question more obvious to you. You said that there were some Bush moles “manipulating the system”. I asked you to support your assertion and you have offered none. You want to make these wild over-the-top accusations and then turn around and say “I don’t have to prove anything”. Say what!?
And exactly where IS this cesspool you speak of? Is it right next to the nonexistent oil pipeline that was, according to Michael Moore, our secret reason for going to Afghanistan?
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:49 PM
“Your civility will not be returned”
You mean like nutjobs? Beam-me-to-hell?
Got it.
Civility-slash-denial. Civility-slash-appearances. Civility-slash-images. Civility-slash-leftwing emptiness finally, somehow, overcoming actual reality.
The Left. At ALL costs, that bastion of higher debate into the vey core of the human condition.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:50 PM
Slowly, slowly, slowly, his grip on reality slipping, Garrison hangs, poised to fall into some alternative, bizarro-version of Lake Woebegone where horned Republicans lurk behind every rock, ready to snatch fair-cheeked damsels and accordion players at any moment. “Over the top” doesn’t begin to describe this rather pathetically twisted vision of politics. Bombast and hate do not a good citizen make, but this seems to be what underlies Keillor’s world view and that of a very large part of his audience.
Posted by John Brungardt on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:50 PM
Unfortunately,I don’t agree with Garrison at all. I like Zell Miller and will believe a Demacrat for telling it like it is. If we are to have a country you have to NOT vote for Kerry. I shudder to think of him as president.
Posted by Jean Mitchell on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:50 PM
JIMBOY drops his board, defines parameters and crushes dissent:
“There are only two things that anyone needs to know about John Kerry and Viet Nam.”
Like, thank’s for handling that gnarly Cambodian tube, dude. Power to the People.
(The People, who, in the TRUE counter-culture spirit [*toke, hack*] should know what’s up with The Man’s, like, whole scene and crib and shit…)
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:56 PM
It’s paranoia, Scott (like anybody of my limited intellectual stature could point it out between my repetitive pistol cleanings.)
LeftLogic(tm): There MUST be Bushmoles, because Bush is Hitler.
Ergo there officially ARE invisible Bushmoles. Hitler had ‘em. Right? Makes sense to me.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:01 PM
6gun,
I’ve enjoyed your posts and ripostes. You’ve got a fire in your belly and the facts on your side and you probably don’t need to pound the table quite so hard. Still, I know you’re just trying to break through the liberal fog to some real center. I’ll lurk for a bit to see if you find it but I expect you and I both know that there’s “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once wrote.
Joanne,
Your pillow stuffing responses may be good therapy for you but they make for a lame debate. If the left spent half its energy on real education that it now spends on artsy fartsy conspiracy theories and heart-felt-hatred, one might have some grounds for hope for your side. Absent rehab, the left will not rise to be more than a dead end refuge for tired old totalitarians looking for one last ride on the dialectic merry-go-round.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:11 PM
JimBoy wrote: “There are only two things that anyone needs to know about John Kerry and Viet Nam.”
Oh really? Says who? Jim, by what authority do you get to tell us what we do and do not need to know about any given issue? Did I miss some sort of swearing-in ceremony whereby you were made master arbiter of such things? I think I’ll be deciding for myself what I do and do not need to know JimBoy.
Then, JimBoy wrote: “He volunteered and fought.”
And he also lied about it, and has distastefully exploited those lies in service to his current power grab.
And lastly, JimBoy wrote: “He came back and helped to end that very bad war.”
1) What evidence do you have that John Kerry had any effect to end the Vietnam war?
2) He gave aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of propaganda.
3) He publicly smeared the American soldier, and now portrays himself as a great American soldier - hence, bringing the current Swift Boat Vets controversy on himself.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:12 PM
Margo,
It might be a good idea for you to go to New Zealand, where the government thinks mostly in economic terms, like you seem to. For example, economic considerations apparently take precedence when it comes to foreign relations in New Zealand. The government of New Zealand recently signed a trade agreement with Iran, a country which recently hung a 16-year-old girl for being raped and pointing out that she was a victim, and which, incidentally, exports terrorism.
I know that it is tempting to think that George W. Bush is the biggest problem in the world. He is a lot less terrifying, even in the prose and art which mocks him, that are people who convince young men that they can receive the eternal services of 72 virgins in heaven if they can only die while killing you and your family. It is so much easier to face the horror that is Bush. At least you can oppose him without being slaughtered. Anything to make you feel better about yourself.
It’s sort of like Michael Moore convincing himself that if Osama bin Laden is dangerous, it is because of his wealth and not because of his ideology. Bill Gates is REALLY the one we should be going after, right?
There really IS a cultural divide in the United States, isn’t there?
Posted by Karen on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:28 PM
Jimboy, they did have their own country once. It was south of the Mason-Dixon line and they’re still pissed that they had to get out in the fields and chop their own cotton after the dust-up was over. Back then, they had a unremitting hatred for carpetbaggers. Now they want to be the biggest, baddest carpetbaggers the world has ever seen. It’s not about a relative handful of dangerous lunatics armed with weapons purchased on an open arms market that benefits US corporations to the tune of billions every year. [Or perhaps more dangerous items, possibly stolen while our inept president runs for office and fails utterly to make any determined much less comprehensive effort to secure such materials.] It’s about…kicking somebody’s ass, anybody’s ass in an impotent rage. That’s the deal.
So Jim, once again, thanks for your perspective. IMO you’re a real man who speaks with heart, as is Ed, as is Bernie, as is Lyle, as do so many men and women who have posted here.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:30 PM
You’re right, Brooks. I don’t care anymore what the Left thinks about what they wish to believe is the Right. Refusing historical perspective and lacking much personal integrity, they made up their minds and indulged their cultural fantasies decades ago. Look what it’s given us. Etch-A-Sketch screeds.
I get a morose kick out of throwing stuff back offensively enough to maybe get their attention and maybe, hopefully, cause a temporary mental course change of even a single degree. They’re not bad people, most of them, just insulated from the real world. Some even come around.
What they can’t understand is that this nasty ole Republican is a mild Independent who opposes the corporate rape of America’s tax coffers, opposes environmental havoc, and supports personal rights. I’m a old-time Constitutionalist and expect govt get out of my bedroom, pocketbook, airport, and school.
Problem is the Left, once proudly in line with those ideals, is bending over for the likes of Clinton and Kerry, and rushing not toward true democratic freedoms but toward utter dependency and sloth and the wholesale erosion of values by their growing lunatic extremists. They go around arm in arm with clowns like Moore and Keillor. It’s all about the appearance of championing some odd Power to the People and the selective use of what they’d have us believe are “living” constitutional principles.
But it’s intellectual Fascism. Crushing of dissent. Restriction of real free speech for a laundered, politically-correct, Statist group-think without substance.
I support Bush not because he’s a globalist player, which he is, but because he apparenty knows how to weild the one true tool granted the federal governments of united states by reason and our founders: The defensive war machine.
I believe we’re also in a culture war for the soul of this country. And I see no reason to abide dysfunctional postmodern leftwingers. They’re dangerous and obsolete, and the stakes are too high.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:37 PM
It’s sad to see how quickly Garrison’s points are brought to life by folks like “6gun” and “scott”. The Right’s reliance on the fear of and condescension for the rest of the world allows them to stir up the conservative masses with matching calls to arms and religion. “USA! USA!”, they cried at the convention, as if our nation was a team to cheer on to victory. “Get ‘em before they get us!” and “Bring it on!”, they proclaim, without so much as a passing thought as to the effect it will have on “them”. They stir and stir, bring their recipe for disaster to a boil: one part nationalistic arrogance, one part greed, one part xenophobia, one part half-baked religious ideology.
I was raised in a conservative family and was for many years a conservative myself, but at no time did I believe that God wanted me or my nation to wage war on my fellow man. Once it became clear to me that most conservatives were motivated by intolerance, fear, or greed, I realized that the Right was actually wrong. Throwing one’s weight around is the tactic of a bully and taking care of one’s fellow man (no matter who that may be) is the tactic of a saint. While those on the Right proudly proclaim that God is on their side, their actions and their words surely say the opposite.
I don’t want my America to be the nation that others most fear, I want it to be the one that they most respect. I don’t want it to be the richest nation, but the most generous and kind. I don’t want it to have the greatest number of rich people, but the fewest number of poor. Funny how those feelings parallel how I feel about my children…
This nation has been traditionally described as a melting pot, a great peaceful blending of diverse traditions and beliefs, where its citizens can enjoy the fruits of freedom and justice. Until we learn to resist being played by those who have commandeered our government with their money, we will continue to boil in the stinking stew that these fearmongers are conjuring up instead.
The “soul of this country” is not about forcing others to act as some majority within would declare to be right, or forcing other countries to operate as we do, but to preserve the ideals of freedom and equality that our forefathers spoke of. If we cannot lead by example, then we cannot lead at all.
Posted by Mark Adams on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:52 PM
Joanne wrote: “Jimboy, they did have their own country once. It was south of the Mason-Dixon line and they’re still pissed that they had to get out in the fields and chop their own cotton after the dust-up was over.”
—————
Joanne, you don’t chop cotton, you pick it. And it’s a very laborious process that I damn well resent having to do when in fact I ought to be able get black people to do it for me for free. And have you the slightest notion how that eats into my schedule; preventing me from attending Goosesteppers Anonymous meetings, or from killing as many innocent Jews as I’d like? Damn that Abraham Lincoln. Now that’s ONE Republican I could live without.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 1:57 PM
It appears to me that Garrison Keillor is using the same type of rhetoric that he accuses the Republicans of using. He is an angry man - angry about his side not being in power. His words are hollow and full of lies that sound like truth.
Unfortunately, what Garisson Keillor fails to see is that the Democratic Party provides no alternative for those of us who are opposed to Bush’s foreign and domestic security policies. The Democratic party has become the party of every special interest, no matter how perverted, and is hostile to our moral and cultural foundations.
For me the Democratic Party is defined by one issue now - a fanatical belief in the sacramental status of abortion. That is a defining issue and it is the only issue that loudly proclaims the difference between the two parties. The Democrats are the party of death, with little true concern for anything but petty convenience for their constituants. They have a warped sense of Liberty and Freedom that knows no boundaries to personal moral license. Keillor wraps himself in the constitution, but it is the Democratic Party that has found a way to twist the Constitution and abandon the principles of the Declaration - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - to condemn millions of unborn children to death at the hands of their mother. This “convenience trumps life” philosophy has turned our culture into a culture of death. When, and if, the Democrats stand up for all of life, including the unborn, I will begin to take them seriously on other issues. For now, all of their words ring hollow, Garisson Keillor’s included.
The Republicans are the party of life, with some semblance of restraint on the government’s power to confiscate any person’s wealth at any time and transfer it to another. Notice I said semblance of restraint. The Republicans have almost abandoned the ideals of limited and constitutional government. That is why I may not vote Republican this time, but am seriously considering the Constitution Party. It may be time to abandon the two major parties. Do either really represent us?
For Keillor to write as he has and not also condemn the Democrats, shows a petty anger. I see the same anger in all of the posts above. Everyone is just mad that their people aren’t in power. Hardly a one of the posts above show any sign that anyone is thinking, or even has the capacity to think rationally. We cheer when the other side gets a good tongue lashing without thinking about the words being spoken. Listen and analyze what Keillor is saying. He offers nothing constructive but a vicious rhetoric.
You may hate George Bush and his administration for a variety of reasons, but surely, the alternative is no better. And with the Democratic proclivity to embrace every perversion known to mankind, Bush is probably the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 2:00 PM
Sorry to repeat, but it’s worth repeating:
GAO: Ex-Medicare Chief Should Repay Salary
Tuesday September 7, 2004 8:16 PM
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The former Medicare administrator should repay his government salary because of his efforts to keep higher estimates of the cost of a prescription drug plan from Congress last year, congressional investigators said Tuesday.
The recommendation from the Government Accountability Office reignited the controversy over the passage of the Medicare overhaul and questions about whether the Bush administration intentionally concealed its own estimates of the cost - $100 billion more than the $400 billion it acknowledged - to win support from conservative Republicans.
The Associated Press reported last year that Thomas Scully, the Medicare chief until December, threatened to fire chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster to prevent him from giving the information to lawmakers.
Federal law prohibits a federal agency from paying the salary of an official who prevents another federal employee from communicating with Congress, GAO said.
Because the Department of Health and Human Services ``was prohibited from paying Mr. Scully’s salary after he barred Mr. Foster from communicating with Congress, HHS should consider such payments improper,’’ GAO general counsel Anthony Gamboa wrote in a report to Democratic senators who requested it. ``Therefore, we recommend that HHS seek to recover these payments.’’
An earlier report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also concluded that the administration was wrong to keep the information from Congress.
HHS officials and Scully, who now works for a law firm and investment bank, did not immediately provide comment Tuesday.
But the administration argued in a July report that no laws were broken. Scully ``has the final authority to determine the flow of information to Congress,’’ the HHS inspector general’s office said.
The administration has adamantly refused to release Foster’s estimates, even since the law’s enactment in December. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court. The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, received 13 pages that had previously been made public.
The administration withheld another 150 pages that HHS acknowledged are responsive to the AP’s request.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-447 79309,00.html
Another example of the current administration’s policies of secrecy and public deceit.
So hiding $100 billion discrepancy from Congress is ethically and fiscally responsible?
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 2:20 PM
For clarification, the post above, beginning with “It appears to me that Garrison Keillor…” was posted by a different “Scott”.
My new “Original Scott” screen name is done tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 2:22 PM
Again, sorry to repeat the news, but how does this administration deserve another term when they are ripping-off our own (tax-supported) army?
US army to take back Halliburton’s $13bn contract after costs dispute
David Teather in New York
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
The US army is preparing to abandon a contract with Halliburton, the company formerly run by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, which has been investigated for allegedly overcharging it.
The contract to provide housing, food and other services to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, potentially worth $13bn (£7.2bn), is expected to be broken into smaller parts and opened to competitive bids in the next few months.
The Halliburton division awarded the contract, Kellogg Brown & Root, has been fighting a rearguard action against allegations of massive overcharging for much of the past year.
Last month Pentagon auditors suggested that the army should withhold payment of 15% of Halliburton’s invoices in Iraq, saying that the company had been unable to account properly for at least $1.8bn of the $4.3bn it had so far asked for.
The army is still considering the recommendation.
In a memo of August 25, cited by the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Tina Ballard, the army’s chief procurement officer, ordered officials to “immediately begin the transition to competitively awarded sustainment contracts for support of US military forces in Iraq.”
Halliburton has been swamped by controversy since it emerged that it had been given contracts to repair oilfields and give logistical back up to the army in Iraq.
To the Democrats Halliburton has become shorthand for cronyism and special interests in the Bush administration.
The logistics work was given to the company without a competitive tender under an existing 10-year contract to provide a wide range of contingency services to US troops.
The army is expected to invite tenders for six different contracts.
It is expected that they will include food services, housing and transportation.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said the company had expected the army’s decision.
“Such a transition is anticipated,” she said, “and planned for in all our contingency operations.
“Our contingency work in the Balkans was bid out in much the same way.”
She said Halliburton would review the contracts on offer before deciding whether to make a bid.
The memo is said to address the increasing frustration of army officers at the effort to reach a final estimate for the work being carried out by KBR.
One option apparently being considered is for the army to come up with its own quote.
Halliburton has accused its critics of using it to score political points against Mr Cheney.
But the company has provided the Democrats with plenty of ammunition.
Last month it admitted finding evidence that a consortium it leads had at least discussed bribing Nigerian officials to win a contract.
And it paid $7.5m to settle a claim by the US financial watchdog that it had failed to disclose an important accounting change during Mr Cheney’s tenure which allowed it to keep meeting Wall Street’s forecasts.
Special report
United States of America
World news guide
North American media
Media
New York Times
Washington Post
CNN
Government
US government portal
White House
Senate
House of Representatives
————————————————————————————————————————-
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1299490,00.html
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 2:27 PM
Here’s a gravely serious ISSUE (IMO) that should be headline news in the debate over the upcoming election.
PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC) Here’s a link that discusses it briefly for those of you who are unfamiliar with this very important agenda:
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/28571/view
I am curious of those who support the current administration, and plan to continue to do so by voting for them again in November:
1) Are you familiar with this agenda?
2) Does it reflect/represent your views and the direction you believe is in the best interest of average Americans and the rest of the world? Will you elaborate on your answer, whether in favor or oposition, please?
3) Do you feel that the currently administration is being forthright about this agenda, and that it is representative of the Republican party platform? Please elaborate?
I am also curious whether any of you have heard/read/seen any comments at all from the Kerry camp on PNAC. If so, any links or references would be appreciated.
For those of you who respond, please respond to the issue/agenda/questions asked about it. And, please refrain if you can from name calling, paritsan rhetoric or glittering generalities and speak for yourself about what YOU think about this issue/agenda and its influence on the direction of our country.
Personally, I am gravely concerned for several reasons. First, because I perceive that the vast majority of those who support the current administration and align themselves with the Republican Party have never heard of this and have no idea of the influence it has had/is having on the policies being pushed through, the direction of our country, and the far-reaching effects on our foreign policy. Second, which is closely related to the first, I believe it is further representation of the secrecy and deception being carried out under-cover, while we in-fight over whether liberals are whiners or conservatives are crooks, et al. This is a major agenda behind the actions, policies and practices of the “leaders” at the top levels of our government, and I don’t believe there was any mention of it at all at the RNC. Anyone???
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 2:34 PM
You’re kidding, right?
You spew all this class-hatred, yet nominate the two richest guys who ever ran for the office of President. What’s up with that? Where’s everyman?
If “rich” people never deserve tax breaks, only increases, what happens when the taxrate gets to 100%? If they “sometimes” deserve tax breaks, what are the criteria? If it’s when there’s no debt, what stops us from implementing social programs until there’s nothing preventing the “100%” bracket?
Lincoln would applaude today’s Republican party. They’re working to free low-income people from their Democrat slavemasters.
I’m a proud Lincoln-Republican.
Posted by Jeff Childers on Sep 8, 2004 at 2:52 PM
That’s ok Kelly,you learn to ignore 6gun after awhile.He has delusions of grandure.He comes around to scoff,cast aspersions,and generally just muddy up the water,all the while trying to convince himself and others that George Bush has a handle on the situation.Thus the rediculous statement that the U.S.is sovereign.According to the dictionary that means that the U.S.is possessed of supreme power.Can you imagine that?If we were the supreme power we would not have needed any help from no stinking coalition.We could take over the world.We would have all the minerals,all the money.Everybody would bow down to us.Oh please,what a fool.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:24 PM
Ed, your stuff isn’t really worthy of a reply, but perhaps there’s still hope you’ll develop the ability to think and understand.
The US is a sovereign nation. It has a sovereign rule of law founded in an exclusive American Constitution and founding documents. Obviously, it was not originated by, nor does it bow to the UN. It does not receive policy from Europe or clearance from the rest of the Globe…which is why it can go and do things many of your kind find offensive. There is no “international law” the sovereign US needs to observe unless it chooses.
The US is a sovereign nation. This takes guts and clarity of purpose to appreciate, Ed. Put your dictionary aside…unless it includes “sovereign” in the context of this very real, very important point of fact.
An aside to the other like-minded name-callers: Is it actually possible your dumbed-down grasp of your fundamental responsibilities within this special experiment in freedom we call a nation of united states is so limited that you cannot grasp this? I didn’t think it was possible to underestimate you, but apparently I was wrong.
If so, why do you vote, except to destroy that most precious gift you can neither appreciate nor understand, much less acknowledge is so valued by others willing to make the daily (or ultimate) sacrifice in order to remain free?
Maybe you can see why those of us with a grasp of this delicate balance become outraged at your idiocy. Or, because of that same idiocy, maybe not.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:42 PM
Hi Kim.
To answer your questions:
1) Yes.
2) Yes. The barbarians are at the gate - crashing passenger jets into skyscrapers (3000 dead Americans, thousands wounded and maimed for life, thousands more missing their wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters, and sons, and children are being targeted and slaughtered in previously unimaginable ways (as in Beslan), etc. and so forth. As I write this, thousands of Islamists seek various biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in an effort to destroy this country - settling for one of two things: that we throw out the Constitution and replace it with the Koran, or that we all die. Meanwhile, a limp-wristed Europe insists on self-righteous appeasment, altogether unaware that anything short of unconditional surrender will suffice.
3) The current administration outlined its agenda very clearly at last week’s convention.
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:45 PM
Hi Kim. I lifted this from the PNAC website. PNAC doesn’t scare me. Kerry/Edwards do.
——-
“In an interview with the Washington Post published [Tuesday], Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards promised that a Kerry administration would offer a “grand bargain” to the totalitarian theocracy in Iran. This “grand bargain” would allow the Islamic state to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for a promise to give up the kind of nuclear fuel used to make bombs.
This is a dangerous proposal and should receive close scrutiny.
First, the Kerry team has apparently learned nothing from the disastrous deal the Clinton administration made with North Korea back in the 1990s. Edwards’s proposal for a “grand bargain” with Iran is almost identical to the Clinton administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework deal. In that earlier “bargain,” North Korea promised to halt work on nuclear weapons in return for American assistance with “peaceful” nuclear programs. We now know that the North Korean government lied all along and used the agreement to proceed with its nuclear weapons programs.
But the Kerry team is undeterred by this record of failure. In fact, Edwards’s proposal is of a piece with Kerry’s generally soft approach to dangerous regimes like the one in Teheran. Back in March, Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations that he wanted to carry out a “non-confrontational” policy toward Iran that emphasizes areas of “mutual interest.”
Being “non-confrontational” with Iran apparently means not raising troubling matters, such as Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism. In outlining his proposed “grand bargain” with the Iranian government, Edwards completely ignored the fact that a number of senior ranking al Qaeda officials now live and operate in Iran under the Iranian government’s protection. Richard Clarke has stated that he regards the connection between Iran and al Qaeda as very dangerous. Yet John Edwards does not insist that his “grand bargain” must include a promise by Iran to cut off all ties with al Qaeda and to turn over those al Qaeda operatives on Iranian soil. Undoubtedly, this is all part of Kerry’s and Edwards’s strategy for waging a “more sensitive” war on global terrorism.
Kerry and Edwards believe the failed policies of the 1990s remain suitable to the post-September 11 era. We doubt a majority of Americans will agree.”
——-
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:48 PM
Why is it that so few of the people around me can see this? I agree with everything you say, but there are so many blind Americans who believe the most blatant of Bush’s lies. When I tell them of Norquist’s quote and how Bush is selling out our government’s social programs by bankrupting the country, they think I’m exaggerating the issue. They call me a liberal, or they suggest that I’m reading too much propaganda. Bush’s true agenda is so difficult for anyone to believe, that they choose to only believe what they think they see - a decisive man doing what he must to protect us. I try to explain that decisive does not mean right, but that is difficult to get through to people these days. Too many people have been kept too scared too long and choose to remain ignorant about the truth. I just hope there’s enough thoughtful people out there to vote this joker out of office.
Posted by Lydia on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:49 PM
In response to Brooks:
M. Bierbaum,
“The beautiful thing about our system of government is I don’t have to care about your moral definitions. And I don’t. Between us, legal authority is all that matters and you have completely misconstrued constitutional and
legal authority in order to score your zingers. I blame your teachers.”
As a matter of fact my teachers would be very proud of me.
How eloquently you argue my very point. The separation of church and state is about the difference between moral definitions and legal authority. This administration claims to be guided by its Conservative Christian principles and it continues to show by its actions that it is in direct conflict with those Conservative Christian Principles.
By the way, the legal authority of this nation is based upon the Constitution. Should I score one more zinger here?
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:55 PM
Jean,I feel exactly the same as you….......but about 180degrees the other direction.I to shudder to think what will become of this country if we can survive another four years of the Bush campaign to be King of the sovereign United States of America.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 3:58 PM
Why is it that so few of the people around me can see this? asks Lydia.
(Wow, talk about an opening.) Maybe it’s because, like any unique reality, only YOU see it, dear.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:07 PM
So Ed, if Bush wants to be King (another unique point of view has Ed) how exactly do you know this?
Would it be his downsizing taxation? Considering abolishing the presumption-of-guilt IRS juggernaut? Or is it those pesky empowerments of private-sector groups of [GASP!] actual US citizens?!
Yep, sounds all King-like to me, Ed.
Still tied up in defining “sovereign”? Sorry, I can only lead a horticulture once…
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:12 PM
Lydia wrote: “Why is it that so few of the people around me can see this?”
Because Lydia, unlike you, we’re stupid.
—————
Lydia wrote: “there are so many blind Americans who believe the most blatant of Bush’s lies.”
Which lies would those be Lydia? (Please confine your answer to the dictionary definition of the word “lie”.)
—————
Lydia wrote: “Bush is selling out our government’s social programs by bankrupting the country, they think I’m exaggerating the issue.”
No Lydia, you have it backwards. Social programs are bankrupting our country. There is a reason that pyramid schemes are illegal. Nevertheless, our government is running a mammoth pyramid scheme euphemistically known as “Social Security”. We’re not even supposed to HAVE social programs in the first place, unless you can point out for me which part of the constitution states that some people are entitled to the earnings of others.
—————
Lydia wrote: “Bush’s true agenda is so difficult for anyone to believe.”
Lydia, what IS Bush’s true agenda? And, how did you come to know of this secret agenda?
—————
Lydia wrote: “they choose to only believe what they think they see - a decisive man doing what he must to protect us. I try to explain that decisive does not mean right, but that is difficult to get through to people these days.”
That’s a strawman Lydia. Whoever said that decisive means right? What I can say with certainty however is that indecisiveness is the sign of a poor leader - even if you want to blame it on his “nuance”.
—————
Lydia wrote: “Too many people have been kept too scared too long and choose to remain ignorant about the truth.”
Scared Lydia? The entire liberal agenda is based on fear, and so are the means used to acquire liberal power. And again, what are you talking about when you speak of “truth”? When did truth become a concern for the liberal agenda? Whenever liberals start talking about “truth”, I hide my wallet and call my tax attorney.
—————
Lydia wrote: “I just hope there’s enough thoughtful people out there to vote this joker out of office.”
Thoughtful people? You mean, thoughtful like you, Lydia? I’m not sure we have that many “thoughtful” people. The joker stays.
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:16 PM
Kim, and OScott for that matter, if you don’t feel you need your news filtered through PNAC, you can go to the original article in the WaPo. You’ll see the obvious spin PNAC is putting on the interview, and you may still agree with the PNAC perspective, but it is only one interpretation after all. There will be more information available on this matter in a few days, and generally the Kerry website publishes all of his policy statements, so you can look there to eliminate the filter of the journalists writing about the topic.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:18 PM
“As a matter of fact my teachers would be very proud of me.”
Well, see, that’s the problem with Statist education, Mike. Like Kerry, they’re French- sorry; I mean, Socialist to the core…
“The separation of church and state is about the difference between moral definitions and legal authority.”
Wrong, Mike. Among other things, the separation of church and state is about the moral definitions OF the legal authority as it fully applies to freedom OF religious expression.
In other words, without a moral base, none of our laws, rights, or presumptions and expectations of freedom—primarily including the essential freedom to practice a moral religion with which to influence government to be just—would even exist.
Therefore, moral underpinnings precede freedom precede religious expression…in Churches.
Didja know the entire fledgling American country was overrun by churches, Mike? That every dang Founder and just about every citizen came here to preserve religious freedom and expression, not build an agnostic Statist utopia?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:19 PM
Ed wrote: “Thus the rediculous statement that the U.S.is sovereign.According to the dictionary that means that the U.S.is possessed of supreme power.”
——-
Now Ed, I think you know very well that’s not what 6Gun meant. Your desperation to score a point is hanging out like a cheap hooker.
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:23 PM
Pop quiz:
Separation of Church and State is a Constitutional guarantee. Yes? No?
“Separation of Church and State” appears in the founding documents?
“Separation of Church and State” appears in postmodern Liberal dogma?
Government officials must be Agnostics?
US law is (was?) built on moral code?
Ending religious expression on tax-paid public property is enforcing freedom of speech?
Bonus points:
Separation of Church and State is designed to protect (a) the Church, or (b) the State?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:28 PM
Joanne wrote: “Kim, and OScott for that matter, if you don’t feel you need your news filtered through PNAC, you can go to the original article in the WaPo. You’ll see the obvious spin PNAC is putting on the interview, and you may still agree with the PNAC perspective, but it is only one interpretation after all. There will be more information available on this matter in a few days, and generally the Kerry website publishes all of his policy statements, so you can look there to eliminate the filter of the journalists writing about the topic.”
—————
Joanne, what do I do if I don’t want my news “filtered” through The Washington Post, or the Kerry camp for that matter? And where in the world did you get the notion that I have but one source for my news and/or analysis? You know, I don’t spend ALL my time killing innocent Jews or enslaving black people to pick my cotton.
But yes, I too noticed the “spin”. It occurred precisely where they offered up (gulp, gasp) legitimate and well-founded criticism of Edwards’ Carter-esque proposal. And yes, I’m quite sure that the Kerry camp is busy framing this in a way as to make it sound as if Edwards is not completely clueless on the matter. They’ve quite the task ahead of them.
Try not to let your LRM (Loin-response Mechanism) influence your opinion of John Edwards. Though he may moisten the soil of your middle-earth, he could also get us all killed.
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:39 PM
Garrison Keillor, you are truly a fatuous and self-absorbed idiot of gargantuan proportions. What a waste.
Posted by Mike on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:44 PM
Following is a link to a website hosted by the Family Steering Committee, family members of those killed in the attacks on 9/11/01:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/
“The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The FSC is not affiliated with any other group, nor does it receive financial or other support from any organization or individual.”
This is (btw) ONE of many movements underway, including class action lawsuits, on behalf of the families who lost loved ones on that tragic day, charging our nations “leaders” at that time with accountability for the events of 9/11.
This site has a very comprehensive overview of these families’ experiences attempting to get answers and accountability from our gov’t., and more specifically from the officials charged with protecting our country on that fateful day.
They, like many of us in this country, believe that “We the People” have a right to know the answers to many obvious, relevant, and still unanswered questions about the events before, on and after 9/11/01. A list of their questions can be found at:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
As I have said, I am not at all interested in partisan politricks and neither refute nor endorse any candidate based on their political party (or their propaganda). I believe, as (understandably)these families do, that we deserve answers to these, and IMO, many other questions around the anomolies that allowed such an event to occur, from those in positions of “responsibility”.
It bewilders me, and anyone I’ve ever met and had discussions on this issue- who are not evangelistically entrenched in partisan politics, how an administration on whose watch the most massive “failure” of National Defense and overall “Intelligence” in our nation’s history took place- has managed not only to avoid any accountability for the tragic events of that day, but to spin that event into a factor in their favor (????)
If our “leaders”, our “Commander-in-Chief” and heads of every other department related to “Intelligence” or “Defense” are not required to give a detailed, no-holds-barred, under-oath-account of their actions, inactions, policies, practices or anything else “We the People” care to ask of them regarding the “performance” of their duties, who the hell IS?
If this is not a central issue in the discussion of the direction of our nation, and this upcoming election- what the hell IS?
If those charged with “accountability” are allowed to hand-pick the panels who will require that accountability, and allowed to define the parameters of the inquiry, exactly WHAT IS the definition of “Justice” for all???
As I have also stated, I am no fan of JK and am dismally depressed over the lack of viable alternatives in the upcoming election. So, please don’t respond with partisan rhetoric about my presumed political agenda. I’ll make it easy and “out” my agenda: I believe that there is much to be learned from- and much more to be uncovered about- a tragedy that unquestionably has been the catalyst for collosal change in our nation. I believe that not only should those at the helm the day of that massive disaster NOT EVEN be considered for “re-election” before the questions posed by the famiies (and many others) are answered, but that those “leaders” (whether they be Dems’/Repubs or Martians for God’s sake…should willingly, without anything to hide, testify under-oath regarding every aspect of those events,AND their accountability for such. This has NOT been the case, to say the very least.
My question for those who support those individuals charged with ensuring our nation’s security on that day, and their potential re-election…
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? ARE YOU THINKING? Are you aware of the measures that have been taken by those individuals to ensure that no light is ever shown on the details of that disaster? How is it that you believe that those individuals deserve promotions, budget increases, absolution and potential re-election? Please, without partisan positioning, can you help me and others who share this same bewilderment understand your rationalization?
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 4:49 PM
Joanne, Not sure, but I think you may have interpreted that I’m not aware of, or worse, supportive of the PNAC. To clarify, I am chillingly aware of the agenda, from a variety of different perspectives.
I have not been able to find any specific reference or statement of position on the PNAC from the Kerry camp. Do you have any links or recall any references he’s made to this agenda?
Scott, Thanks for your response and I appreciate your forthrightness in your support of the PNAC agenda. However, If you will revisit my post, you’ll see that my concerns/questions, which you didn’t answer are that the Republican Party is not being as forthright as you in representing the PNAC as a cornerstone of its platform, and that nearly NONE of the Republicans (or Bush supporters) I’ve asked have ever heard of this agenda. If they did in fact mention it at the RNC, can you tell me WHO cited it (by NAME) and which of its tenets were laid out in detail? If it was, I haven’t heard the mainstream media mention a word of it, and, as I said, I’ve yet to find hardly a single Bush supporter who’s ever heard of it. You were a rare exception.
Why is this very integral component of the current administration’s agenda not as talk-a-day a topic as the “New Deal” or “Leave no child behind” or any of the many programs which were integrally involved in defining and promoting a party’s platform in the past? Why has this agenda not been discussed in public discourse in relationship to its seeming coincidences in national/world events and the agenda of the current administration?
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:09 PM
In response to 6Gun:
“This hoary phrase doesn’t even appear in the Constitution, and had absolutely no place in the forming of the American Republic.”
Shall I direct you to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Seems to me that is pretty clear concerning the separation of church and state. Seems to me also that the folks who came here in the first place were pretty fed up with the state religion infringing on their free exercise of their religion. I guess I missed that part in my history courses in college.
“Rather, the Framers saw to it (as best they could, not envisioning post-modern, images-based Leftist culture of today) that freedom OF religion would be the basis of a moral society, a moral society, in their words, being essential to literal cultural and national survival.”
The framers of the Constitution were mostly Christians to be sure, however, it was pretty clear that they didn’t limit religious freedom to just Christianity. An atheist friend of mine once said, “Why do people assume that because I am an atheist that I have no moral code? I have a very strong moral sense and I hold to it firmly.” This man is kinder, more honest, loyal and trustworthy than many self proclaimed Christians that I know. So don’t assume a lack of morality if there is an apparent lack of religion.
“Government was never intended to be free from…the freedom of speech and religious expression! Your statement casts trendy aspersions but contains neither logic or
reality.”
I have an example, I am a Roman Catholic… (surprised?) I am also a musician (oops, damned myself to the hell of irrelevance). As a musician I often worked in other denominations and often heard prayers, sermons and hymns that were in opposition to Catholicism. Had I heard such coming from a publicly funded forum I would have been outraged. I would have been further outraged to know that my tax dollars were being spent to insult my religion, at worst, and at best that I was being forced to support a religion that was against mine. Is it not therefore logical to assume that it is at best insensitive and at worst insulting to expect a non-Christian to be required to participate in Christian prayer or have their tax dollars go to support a display of Christian symbols? Or a Christian to likewise support a pagan dislpay?
“How is it that it seem logical for the Left to holler about freedom from religion and freedom of free speech when it is their own revisionism that
PREVENTS freedom of speech not sanctioned by the State’s religion (of secular humanistic speech and thought control) on tax-paid property?!”
Is it not a mindblower to the Left that one simply may not express the slightest non-sanctioned thought on federal property?”
You mentioned something about casting “trendy aspersions” and containing neither “logic or reality.” How does it preclude the personal expression of religion through personal prayer or mode of dress, in any public place? When I was a teacher and passed out the test papers I saw a lot of kids in my room stop and say a prayer. When I went into the lunch room I saw a lot of kids say grace before eating, I said grace myself. What I didn’t see was a “prayer cop” come out and stop them and arrest them for praying on public property. My daughter is a Wiccan and believes in a goddess. Her choice, not my choice but this government does not have the right to force her to recognize or support another form of religion.
“Fence sitters of the kind who foolishly believe freedom from religion (and ethics and
philosophies and morality) constitutes the basis to steer the ship of State are simply incorrect an will, in the (postmodern) end, add to the oppression of the very rights they sanctimonously think they preach today.”
Well, I for one am no fence sitter. I know which side of the fence I sit on.
Be assured that Freedom OF Religion, no matter if that religion is based on Western Judeo-Christianity, Eastern Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism, or Shintoism, Islam, Neo-Paganism, or even atheism, does NOT constitute an absence of ethics, philosophies nor morality. Why do you make the assumption that it would be otherwise? Are you inferring that any other religious tradition, ethics system, philosophy or morality than your own is somehow devoid of ethics and morality?
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:15 PM
Sure, Kim.
Politics aside, US government is a terribly irresponsible, unaccountable entity and must be distrusted. So far, a concept dear to the hearts of true Democrats and true Republicans, but obviously not to the vast centrist masses voting themselves graft without accountability.
Any rational person with any grasp of human nature and history knows that we’re not forever vigilant, it’s at our own peril.
From there, we ask if there is reason—evidence, cause, motive, proximity, means, etc.—to believe that, say, the Bush Admin caused 9/11. Or had any advance warning they didn’t share. Or is profiting from the war.
Likewise, we ask if there is similar evidence if the Islamofascists who have sworn to undo us are actively working…to undo us. Again we take a look at evidence, cause, motive, proximity, means, and etc.
I don’t know about you but while I seriously believe (by the evidence) that my government is a vile, power-mad, fire-belching monster whose primary intent is domestic and foreign control, at least to some significant degree, those lunatics on the planet outside of the US constitute a larger and more imminent danger.
So…crushing the KNOWN psychopathic murders is Job One, and returning government back to the people is Job Two.
I’m with you on the threat presented by big (Socialist, dependence-causing, and very occasionally globe-straddling) US government, I see little evidence of Pax America in any of the rebuilding efforts following any of the big wars over the last 100 years, nor do I see any credible evidence of corruption in the Bush Administration post 9/11. Remember that your post containsa none either; just complaints that the opportunity to see if any exist are being shunted.
And this lack of evidence persists despite literally millions of foreign and domestic individuals intent only on this single goal. Discrediting Bush on the international pire would make perhaps 2/3 of the planet happy. Why? They can’t face their fear that dealing preemptively beats capitulation. Look around: Weakminded international (and domestic) politicians expose their profound weakness when that ADMIT they fear NOT giving into these terrorists so as to TRY and appease them. They don’t even bother concealing this sedition and simpering cowardice.
You should thank Bush for having the courage to understand and act upon this fundamental fact.
So is it still reasonable to think Bush is an anarchistic meglomaniac? (Especially while ritually accusing him of the sin of Christian values, which are anything but anarchistic or meglomaniacal?)
Do you think these millions couldn’t have outed a credible case against him by now if they had one?
Meanwhile, in plain view, just this week, and without pity, apology, stealth, or any other motive than pure evil, Islamofascist terrorists took the lives of hundreds of innocent schoolchildren.
Think like a detective, Kim. Or an attorney. Look for cause, effect, motive, evidence. Ask basic questions. Come to basic, rational conclusions.
It’s not the wretched Right that has “partisan positioning” blinding it’s thinking (in this issue,) it’s the Left. You wonder why we think the Left is so impossibly blinded by it’s biased rage that it’s certifiably nuts? It’s stuff like this.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:19 PM
Spoken as only he can speak…
The nation has been hijacked by a small group of radical christian elitist thugs. Through the manipulation of the election by the conservative supreme court in 2000, they have siezed control of our government. They rule by fear and secrecy, and fortify their position by inches each day. I am afraid that another 4 years of this madness will destroy the country.
Burn the Bush!
Posted by Jay on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:23 PM
Kim - try this site for more perspective on PNAC:
http://pnac.info/
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:27 PM
Hi Kim. I think I only just answered the questions that you had numbered. I thought those were the official ones, so to speak.
I’m not sure why you think that the PNAC agenda is the Republican agenda per se. Though some bits of the two overlap, I don’t think one can take that to mean that they are one and the same. All that PNAC is is a conservative think tank. Washington’s got one some sort of think tank on just about every corner.
Also, the way that things have to be digested by the public these days, in pithy summation, you couldn’t really expect Bush to get up there and say “Our agenda is the PNAC agenda. Look it up”.
Anyway, it’s not like PNAC is a scary group of conspirators trying to take over the world. They just want to protect this country.
If you write back Kim, I don’t know if I’ll be able to reply right away, in that I have to be leaving the house in about 10 minutes.
See ya.
Posted by Original Scott on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:28 PM
Addition to:
“This essay of Garrison Keillor’s needs to be read by every American. How can it be published so that no one will miss it? It is being passed around
on the internet but most older folks and lots of busy working people don’t “surf the web.”
I’d like to see it published on a full page in every newpaper.
Greer Nolan”
And perhaps while not entirely germaine to this debate but commentary on the general state of our country: In addition to Mr. Keillor’s essay perhaps Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol” should be required reading for business ethics courses. Even the miserly Scrooge paid Cratchit his day’s wages for the Christmas holiday, yet how many of our minimum wage and hourly workers today are out a day’s wages when the business is closed?
I guess the basic question is which is more important, the profit or the person?
Sorry to diverge.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:35 PM
Kim when some one says it was actually 25 or 28 hundred,not that that is an insignificant number.Also,when some one says americans,it should be remembered that a large number of the people in the twin towers were from africa,asia,and european countrys too.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:37 PM
God told me 6pak,that George wanted to be king.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:47 PM
Scott and 6 Gun:
I want to thank you for your responses and for not lobbing presumed labels at me, rather than answering the questions I’ve posed. I am sincerely interested in understanding the answers to questions that seem paramount to me from those who support the re-election of the current administration.
I still don’t feel that either of you, or any other Bush Admin. supporters I’ve asked these questions will ever answer my questions directly.
I admit, my posts were long, so let me break it down to my fundamental questions:
1)Do you, or anyone else who favor re-election of our current leadership believe that the questions posed by the families of the 9/11 victims are relevant and should require under-oath answers from those who were at the helm that day? And if not, WHY NOT? If you haven’t read them, they are very basic, obvious and highly relevant questions that anyone with common sense, let alone anyone who lost a loved one, have been asking.
2) Regarding PNAC, why has the current administration not been forthright in referencing this agenda as a major plank in their political agenda? Scott, again I ask if you can tell me who at the RNC mentioned it (by NAME) and what was said about it and its obvious impact on the policies of this administration. Do you believe that it is not a relevant factor that the voters should be aware of?
These questions are not just for Scott or 6Gun, although I find it interesting that they are the only ones who’ve responded. Please, anyone who supports the current admin. or their re-election, shed some light.
Posted by Kim on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:48 PM
Let’s not goof around, Mike.
“Shall I direct you to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Seems to me that is pretty clear concerning the separation of church and state.”
You know quite well I don’t claim the 1st Amendment doesn’t exist nor should you conclude from anything I’ve said that I think the State has authority to establish a religion (even though, in my opinion it has, but that’s another subject.)
What I said, as you know, is that freedom FROM religion canard is not part of the 1st…and it is decidedly not, if you care to inspect it with that in mind. We’ve been over this.
“Seems to me also that the folks who came here in the first place were pretty fed up with the state religion infringing on their free exercise of their religion. I guess I missed that part in my history courses in college.”
What’s your point, Mike? Can you point me to any of us who have contested that fact?
“The framers of the Constitution were mostly Christians to be sure, however, it was pretty clear that they didn’t limit religious freedom to just Christianity. An atheist friend of mine once said, “Why do people assume that because I am an atheist that I have no moral code? I have a very strong moral sense and I hold to it firmly.” This man is kinder, more honest, loyal and trustworthy than many self proclaimed Christians that I know. So don’t assume a lack of morality if there is an apparent lack of religion.”
Again, get it straight: Nobody is suggesting that Christianity was a State-supported exclusive religion…although it was overwhelmingly prevalent in one form or another 200 years ago. Nobody is suggesting that atheists have no moral code, just that Christians have a visible historical moral code, one based on absolute surrender to an Absolute Higher Power, which tends to make their religion of a rather higher quality, even absolute. And nobody is sggesting the two or the hundred cannot live under equal protections in this country, provided they do not violate a law built primarly on one of them.
“I am a Roman Catholic…Is it not therefore logical to assume that it is at best insensitive and at worst insulting to expect a non-Christian to be required to participate in Christian prayer or have their tax dollars go to support a display of Christian symbols? Or a Christian to likewise support a pagan dislpay?”
No, Mike, and once again nobody is suggesting as much! In fact, even Christians have squandered their faith and cowtow to removing any shred of Christian imagery from any tax-paid property. Yet meanwhile we’re all a little soft when we see, hear, or feel any OTHER religion being expressed, no matter the location.
Why? Politically-correct diversity. The new religion of the land.
“How does [government] preclude the personal expression of religion through personal prayer or mode of dress, in any public place?”
Just how much religious expression do you see consistently in public places? Your story is heartening but do you recall them ripping the commandments from the courtroom? Do you recall a constant stream of anti-Christian litigants doing whatever they can to strip any mention—from the Bible to the Pledge—from Statist schools and government buildings?
I don’t disagree that personal religious images and practices MAY disrupt domestic government life, but then I naturally find that it’s the nature of that government life that’s intrusive to religion, and not the other way around. Solution? End government involvement in the private sector’s concerns to the very limit possible at least as much as we now expect the Church to retreat from its values influencing the State. It’s a question of pendulums swinging and picking your poison.
“Be assured that Freedom OF Religion, no matter if that religion is based on Western Judeo-Christianity, Eastern Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism, or Shintoism, Islam, Neo-Paganism, or even atheism, does NOT constitute an absence of ethics, philosophies nor morality. Why do you make the assumption that it would be otherwise?”
I’d have to dissect that question to deal with ethics, philosophies, and morality individually, but generally speaking, why do you make the assumption that I assume as much? I believe there are greatly superior and greatly lessor philosophies that influence equally greater and lesser religions, but I do not make a blanket assumption, with the exception of killer religions and psychopaths, that basic morality is found exclusively in one mindset but utterly not in others.
“Are you inferring that any other religious tradition, ethics system, philosophy or morality than your own is somehow devoid of ethics and morality?”
Not as you present the question, Mike. But there are utterly, impossibly, wrong people, systems, governments, and cultures in this world. Do you agree, or are all behaviors equivalent?
More specifically, for a variety of reasons I personally believe pure Christianity is the ony absolute truth. But not that you have to agree with me, of course.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 5:59 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?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:05 PM
I am shocked the Keillor is so full of venom that he could characterize all Republicans as he has here This piece is nothing but a diatribe. If we didn’t know it was K., we would think it was the ravings of the lunatic fringe. Eight full years of Clinton,and he wants to blame all the bad stuff on Bush’s four years. Yeah, I agree with Ancona, I don’t know how helpful the tone is here. If he’s so brave, why doesn’t try to sell this hate-filled message on his radio show, instead of the safe little forum he has here?
Posted by Jaywalker on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:05 PM
Michael Bierbaum responded:
<snip>
The separation of church and state is about the difference between moral definitions and legal authority.
<snip>
Brooks replies:
Mike, If the state is favoring religion generally, or one religion specifically over other religions, you have an Establishment Clause issue. If the primary purpose of the state action is secular, and the primary effect of the state action is secular, and the state action does not involve an “undue entanglement” between government and religion and vice versa, then the state action will be upheld. This is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test.
If the state is hindering a religious expression, it’s a Free Exercise Clause issue. Where the law is an intentional interference with a bona fide religious practice it will generally be a violation of the Free Exercise clause and the law will be struck down. But there are gray areas. If the particular religious expression involves criminal behavior, then the law will be upheld. If the government has a compelling governmental interest in the law, it will be upheld. If the law is neutral on its face and without intent to burden any specific religion it will generally be upheld.
Beyond the aforementioned considerations, the state does not look at the moral content of the religion. With respect to the nature of the religious expression itself, the only question explored is whether the adherent practices the religion in good faith.
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.
In conclusion, your concerns about the personal religious sentiments of elected officials are of no real consequence. As state actors they are subject to well-defined parameters insofar as what they can do to promote or inhibit religion in the country. I don’t see any evidence on the part of the current administration that they have been testing the limits of the established legal relationships between “church and state” in America.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:10 PM
More 6Gun:
“It’s a documented fact that Bill Clinton mentioned Christ MORE often than the hated fundamentalist from Texas.”
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.
“Ah yes, the ubiquitous Leftwing double standard, part and parcel for a political movement based not in rational thought and principle but on the
mere illusion of a feel-good, politically-correct reality that literally costs innocent lives.”
Hmmm, either we are Nihilists bent on the irrational destruction of everything or we are Humanists based in 18th Century Rationalism of logical thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, John Locke, James Madison, Tom Paine, Voltaire, and George Washington. You seem to have referred to us as both. Can’t have it both ways. And as far as politcal realities that literally cost innocent lives there’s very little that compares with a smart bomb gone astray.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:16 PM
You go, Kim! Sorry I misunderstood your original post - didn’t realize til I read down to your next one that you are apparently well versed in the PNAC.
I’m intrigued by OScott’s soothing and solicitous tone with you, as if PNAC is just another think tank. Of course, that’s nonsense as the guiding lights of that hot tub have regular access to the executive branch and have been tapped for key advisory positions. Richard Perle, currently on location in the South of France (!), comes to mind. Fascinating that he would flee to France, of all places, when his shady business dealings come to light.
And thank you very much for bringing up the latest news on the activities of the 9/11 families. I have not visited that site for awhile, though I have read the list of questions.
How about it all you Bush supporters? I’ll be checking back to see if anyone can/will attempt to answer Kim’s very lucid and pertinent questions.
And Kim, perhaps the reason you can’t find a PNAC/Kerry connection is that there isn’t one. The think tanks tend to be partisan, though that isn’t always the case. In any event, OScott seems pretty well versed in PNAC, and maybe he can tell us if Kerry is involved.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:27 PM
Nice try, collectivist, totalitarian Stalin-lovers.
Posted by Frederick P Blume Jr on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:31 PM
Private HWC* Bernie Ellis, reporting back for duty.
Boy, have I ever missed a serious spitball duel and shit storm on this thread in the past 20 hours (when I posted last). I downloaded all the messages to a WP file and it’s 67 pages long!! Holy cow! But I must say that the dancin’ duo of Original Sin and Pop(off)Gun are really going strong. Tell me, Scott, ya’ll’s crack-like “energy” must really be eating into the profits. And I see from your post above that you’re finally using analogies (“cheap hookers”) where your profession gives you a “heads up” on the rest of us in terms of expertise. If it were me, I wouldn’t talk about my sisters that way, but then I’m not a Repub-liban. But seriously, folks….
First my thanks to Joanne, Ed P., Lyle, Anna, Daydreamer, Michael B. and the many, many others who have continued to fight the good fight. As far as ammunition, they definitely start with a bigger pile of shit than we have. But your laser-like clarity (and your fruitless attempts at civility) continue to make their hateful warfare and sludge-filled slings no match for our side. (What is it that 2004 Kerry supporters say—“right makes might”?)
For me, it has been helpful to just drive and think about our Internet skirmishes over the past ten days and to try to draw some lessons from it, both in terms of the form and the content. I will comment more on that later—I have a second phone interview coming in shortly from the MoveOn folks that will interrupt this post now.
Speaking of which, Joanne, how far is Menasha from Milwaukee? That’s where it looks like 500+ of us will be training next week before going into the battleground states to work. (BTW, Repub-libans, it looks like we’re adding several Southern states to the list of battleground states. So the South is rising again, but for all the right (or is that left?) reasons.) Would love to meet you and yours while I’m up there. Send me a note at home.
Here’s three quick (and relevant) comments from the road, before I find out about my ultimate field assignment:
1) Last night, driving over Monteagle Mountain toward Chattanooga in the rain, I turned on “The Savage Nation” (talk about truth in advertising!), one of the right wing hate shout-out programs on AM radio. Two notable things about that program last night. The first was the suggestion by the host that the solution to the Iraq problems was to “nuke ‘em”. Tell me, Original Sin and Firing Blanks, does Mr. Savage speak for all of you “might makes right” folks with that tactical suggestion? But the second thing I heard was even more amazing and certainly more important: One of the callers to the program—who identified himself as the father of a serviceman in Iraq—said he would be voting for Kerry this November as a protest against Bush’s Iraq policies. I couldn’t believe I was hearing straight (the call screener must be one of Scott’s good customers), but I was. Let me tell you, folks, we’ll take the votes anyway we can get them AND we’ll count them all too.
2) While in Atlanta, I met a Presbyterian minister who’ll also be donating her fall to be a field organizer on our righteous battlefield. She shared with me a bumper sticker they have printed up and distributed in northeast Georgia which reads: “Conservative Christians for Kerry”. Talk about people who walk their talk (and their convictions). When even the walls you Repubs have tried to build around conservatice Christians are beginning to crumble, it might be time to start checking on one-way tickets to Argentina.
3) All the way back from Atlanta (which, by the way can keep its congestion to itself—it took me 90 minutes to go the last 23 miles this morning in their morning rush hour. Ugh!), I honked and gave a “thumbs up” to every car I saw with a Kerry bumper sticker on it. Let me tell you, those anonymous shared moments of commitment to a common cause with several hundred people on the way home made the trip back a whole lot more pleasant.
Tomorrow, after I get some sleep, I want to do a quick content analysis on the 67 pages that have appeared in the last 20 hours—might as well show that my graduate training was worth something. I’m real curious to quantify just how much space Original Sinner and Firing Blanks have been taking up on this thread in the last day and what the positions of new posters have been on the race to re-unelect Duh-bya. I’ll share that tomorrow.
To end the night, how about a few facts: (I can just hear the neo-con-derthals shouting—though they surely must be hoarse by now—“Facts, facts. We don’t need no steenkin’ facts!!”)
1) $422 billion—the largest deficit in US history
2) 2,700—the number of violent encounters our soldiers had with Iraqi insurgents in August alone
3) 1,000+ dead and 7,000+ wounded so far—no trivial matter to those of us who really care about our military (and worth some more prayers from all of us who pray on their behalf tonight)
4) Decisions by the DOD to open up for re-bidding Halliburton’s “no bid” contract arranged by ole “Only we can keep you free and safe from further terrorist attacks” Cheney. (And to think I thought he didn’t have any balls. You need ‘em to carry around those sort of UnAmerican chutzpah.)
5) A decision by GAO to ask Duh-bya’s Medicare chief to refund his salary
6) Revelations that Duh-bya’s lapses in Alabama (missing mandatory National Guard training sessions and his “readiness” physical in 1972) would have made him ineligible to go to Vietnam, had his unit been called up then. (Wonder if we can get ole G-Dub to refund the money, with interest, that the “welfare state” invested in teaching him to fly back then?)
7) Bush’s lead still less than 2 points in the polls I’ve been tracking
Last point: I hope lots of you NPR liberals (and you other independent thinking folks who don’t suffer labels—or Know Nothing critics of non-sanctified news—gladly either) got a chance to hear this evening’s “Fresh Air” with Terri Gross. She interviewed the author of the new book, “Bush’s Brain”. It’s about time we turned President Rove’s tactics back around at him. After all, two can play at this game. And the more shit you folks keep slinging in our direction, the higher the vantage point you’re building for us to return the favor.
Why can’t we all just get along? Well, based on this thread, mainly we can’t all just get along because we can always tell the right-wing True Believers. Unfortunately, we just can’t tell them much. They’re the ones who never learned their manners from their mommas and who haven’t figured out that God gave them one mouth and two ears for a reason.
Good to be sleeping in my own bed tonight, and back behind friendly lines with the teachers, old soldiers, farmers, students, factory workers, successful small business folks, retirees, Southern Republicans and daydreamers on this side of the culture wars. Is it just me, or are the crack-glazed eyes of our enemies presaging a major crash and burn? Keep hope alive—work for Kerry and Edwards!! Ni-tall.
(* HWC—Hard-Working Class)
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:31 PM
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.
Voter fraud and gerrymandering are rife in both parties. No argument there. My points were that Bush did not have a clear popular mandate no matter how you count the popular vote but that doesn’t matter since it is the Electoral College that elects the President and Vice President. And the final decision was made by the Supreme Court. The same body you were fulminating against.
Since you seem to need to resort to ad hominem attacks to press your point be my guest, it doesn’t change the fact that the Bush Administration continues to trample on the Constitution.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:38 PM
Regarding Secular Humanism, Michael, I believe it’s only a matter of time before it will be formally recognized as a religion (it contains all the hallmarks) and then we shall have a conundrum at the level of domestic government. I also restate that I believe that there is no such thing as a purely Nihilist philosophy, simply because to absolutely deny absolutes is logically unsupportable
Back to Secular Humanism as a religion: In Torcaso v. Watkins, October 1961, the US Supreme Court said “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” While this statement contains a footnote indicating that the purpose of the case was to define Secular Humanism, the reasoning is clear and sound.
Further, the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals in Smith v. Bd. of Comm. of Alabama (1987) held that “The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the “delicate question” of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment, and we need not attempt to do so in this case, for we find that, even assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools of the textbook at issue in this case.”
Again, I believe the argument isn’t to the point of Secular Humanism’s nature as a religion or not, but that the case wasn’t developed and decided to that end. This particular case did not contest Secular humanism, but that it had not negatively impacted the establishment clause.
In Supreme Court decision Abington School District v. Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963); Justice Clark stated: “It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a “religion of secularism” is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a “religion of secularism” in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect.”
Once again the essential argument isn’t whether the “religion of secularism” exists, it’s whether or not it’s clearly implied existence has had any effect.
With regard to the early thinkers you mentioned, Michael, we’d all agree that in order to establish a religiously-neutral State, no endorsement of religion can be made by the State. Obvious. But in order to establish a Christian State (or what have you) such a belief could be the basis for the State. Equally obvious.
As far as stating there are no absolutes, which I believe is a component in an increasingly Nihilistic American society, again the argument is immediately dismissed. Likewise Secular Humanism’s essentially Nihilist philosophical core. Were it officially recognized as the religion is appears to certainly qualify to be, there’d be a near-immediate legal conundrum that would obsolete every State facility that, even tacitly, taught it at the exclusion of all other religions. This is the precise reality we deal with each and every day in this country. All it would take is a SCOTUS decision…
I personally find the notion of a purely Christian State the only likely successful society, but as long as I am an American, which should be until I die, I will stand with you, Michael, defending American government from the formal intrusion of every religion. Again, personally, as Brooks may imply quite brilliantly, morality and fairness require a basis and regular maintenance, and I would hope that all American officials had something approaching true Christian personal values.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 8, 2004 at 6:39 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Hey, Scott - Go follow that link provided by your good buddy, 6Pack. It’s a riot! Everyone, go there! It’s a site that purports to be about the injustices suffered by children and their parents when the courts determine custody rights upon dissolution of the marriage. And the answer they’ve come up with is to sue all 50 states for TRILLIONS of dollars!!! So much for tort reformers on the right. What a creative scam. I hope you all appreciate the time and taxpayer dollars your state may have to spend to deal with this. I’m sure glad that someone has taken up the cause of embittered divorced parents who resent the fact that they have to pay child support but, by virtue of having lost custody of their children, have lost the power to tell their ex-spouses what to do! This is so grotesquely unjust that I just think these individuals deserve millions in compensation from the state governments which, having permitted them to marry (foolishly as it turns out), and then agreed to dissolve those marriage bonds, has had the temerity to ajudicate between adults who can no longer be civil to one another and work things out for the sake of their progeny.
And you think we liberal/progressive types are a menace to society? LOL
And Scott, some Republicans do appear to have taken advice and inspiration from the communication experts in the Nazi Party. I’ve also heard Democrats called Nazis. Big deal. As my darling mother used to say, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” But then she also said, “If the shoe fits, buy two pair. You’ll need a spare.” Take your pick.
I have a question for 6gun in reference to his fine dissertation for us on the constitution and separation of church and state.
Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli dated 4 November 1796 (the end of Washington’s last term as President). Unlike the Declaration of Independence which does state “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” the Treaty signed by John Adams President and approved by the Senate and ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797 states the “Government of teh United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, ot tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared byt eh parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The Treaty once ratified represented U. S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2). By virtue of it’s wording and dating the treaty clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U. S. government.
To include Secular Humanism in the context of a religion as defined by the dictionary would be a far reach of believability. By definition religion requires the belief in and reverance for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe. Humanism being a system of though centered on human and their values, capacities and worth. Secular being worldly not spiritual, not related to religion. I can not see the ability to combine them and then call that by definition a religion.
Are you currently teaching at a college or university or is this what yu wrote you Master’s Thesis on or perhaps your Doctoral Thesis? If so I would be interested in seeing all of it.
garrison keillor certainly can write a powerfull article. just one problem, it’s fiction. if even some of it were true i might have a little more respect for him. if he thinks we’re in trouble now, god help us if john kerry gets into office.
Lyle, I think 6Pack/BBGun/PopGun is an entry-pre-noor, working at home on two ‘jobs.’ In other words, a consultant, or a multi-level marketer. Am I getting close, 6? You haven’t commented on my earlier post about being self-employed. Was I off base as to the realities, or can you concede that someone can be in business and still a liberal/whacko, (insert insulting term here)?
By the way, Gunslinger, Bill Clinton did a pretty good job of taking responsibility, though belatedly, for his marital infidelity and the consequences. Undertanding one’s weaknesses, acknowledging them, and then moving on (which includes making amends as best one can, correcting one’s thinking and behavior as needed) is not a sign of dysfunction. In fact, I believe our current President, a former substance abuser and neglecter of his family, would agree.
Do you have a mirror next to your computer monitor so you can admire your halo all day long?
Joanne, I suspect it past BBGun’s bedtime (I am not very convinced that he is the middle-aged, upright citizen he wants us to think he is)....
“A rainy night in Georgia, oh it’s a rainy night in Georgia…” (Well, actually, in Chattanooga).
Hello, all. Just a quick shout-out from half-way to Hot-lanta. I’m too tired to stay on the road because it has been rainy and windy since I left my farm. Just a few quick observations.
The link in Geoff’s latest post is a RIOT!! I was laughing so hard in Kinko’s that the staff here probably were worried (like Scott) that I had left my lithium at home. Geoff, that was such a gift. It’s great to see wicked (and uncensored) humor that is also balanced. Quick, everyone, go visit “This Land Is Your Land” at Geoff’s last post.
Since Scott and ToyGun still haven’t really told us what they do for a living, can we play 20 questions? Scott, does your job have anything to do with modeling leather and lace accessories at Victor(ia)‘s Secret? And ToyGun, you just sound like a blood pressure monitor tester to me—am I right? If I’ve ever wanted to tell two people to “Love Our Democracy and Respect the Importance (and Necessity) of Good Government—Or Leave the Process”, it’s you two (and your nonresponsive friend Brooks—who just has to be a mid-level social services manager in a perpetually underfunded Texas state agency. See, that’s what happens when you underfund and understaff needed social services in Duh-bya’s Amerika—you get employees who spend their time despising their clientele, misquoting government pamphlets and planning on “going postal” as a career move.
Oops, I guess the “let’s all get along” fairy dust wore off when I crossed into another time zone. Or maybe my meds are wearing off. Quick, someone call Canada—I can’t afford them from anywhere south of there (at least not for a few more months anyway). Great to “hear” from the old and the new posters at this 21st century stagecoach stop on the Internet (and interstate) highway. Thanks for the good thoughts, Daydreamer, they have real power, as I am sure you know. And keep the Georgia lights on for me, won-cha? Ni-tall.
Mike,
Sorry but we did not win the Korean War. It was a stalemate. That is why the country is divide today.
All of this cattiness produced at the mere hands of a mid-level wet-behind-the-ears telemarketer working at home in his underwear between tea luncheons with Mom. You so flatter me; will we be turning up the heat now, really bringing the intellectual artillery, etc., etc.
At any rate, you should know better, Miss Phoebe—no, really you should know better, at least about family law before you go off so. Sadly ignorant you do not. It’s just another aspect of government run amok (and in violation of It’s For the Children leftist weepiness) and therefore evidently for your Righteousness to ignore. So much for those ‘Wing civil rights, Phoebe? Not really for the children after all, is it?
You and Anna do have a nice time now and leave the heavy lifting to others.
And Bernie! Don’t feel left out, babe! Love the heels; no really I do. Do stop in and tell us all about your booty again some time, y’hear?
And so goes intelligent, nuanced, superior dialogue with the Left…
Bye kids, there’s really nothing new here, is there? (And you never figured out “6Gun.” Leftists have so little humor…)
Bernie wrote: “Since Scott and ToyGun still haven’t really told us what they do for a living, can we play 20 questions?”
—————
Well Bernie, I didn’t know that my occupation was any of your business, nor do I even know what it has to do with the present discussion. But, if you really must know, I’m a crack dealer. It’s honest work, pays well, and I get to make my own hours. I also peddle a few hoes on the side when my sisters need the extra cash. My hobbies are pouring toxic waste into the water supplies of predominantly black neighborhoods, and I like going around killing innocent Jews. Oh, and stamp collecting also.
Thank you for your interest Bernie, Anna, and Joanne.
Joanne,
I must have missed the post where we were to guess his/her idenities. That’s what I get for being at the Dr’s. all day. It’s a bitch getting old. I’m ready to head to Iraq. Who want’s to come along? Grab your 16 and a double basic load and let’s go. Go out with a bang. Give this planet to the Rad Cons and see how long it lasts in their collective care. Can’t understand all those very intelligent people I have read here following the Tin Man. Any of us could be asleep and be more than the equal of GWB. Must be the money. I never was much of a follower. Maverick yes. Good night Joanne, Bernie safe travels, Anna and all the unnamed others.
Oh, and Lyle, if your question is genuine, it deserves a serious answer. So much of what goes on here is hasty and appropriate only for a casual thread following a horribly poorly reasoned screed that I don’t take too much of it seriously. I have neither the time nor background to spend hours at this…although Keillor’s rot struck a nerve, I admit.
But if you want my personal take on the nature of personal rights and responsibilities in America, should that be important in some way, I take what I hope is a fairly straight-ahead, decidedly non-nuanced view. I dislike the angels on pinheads reasoning I see from the Left’s intelligentsia simply because it always focuses on minutia and never really meets the road in any meaningful way.
It’s my belief that man always has a belief, a faith, and I believe simple logic supports this notion. When the relativist states there are no absolutes, the absolute nature of his assertion (one I believe lies deep in the heart of a huge section of post-modern America) defies him and his philosophy dies. When the atheist states there is no Higher Power, his motivation too is meanwhile either nihilistic or noble; and he too unavoidably chooses at the least an ethical position on the continuum (that includes for others a meaningful image of a Creator as the highest power) or he aims off into chaos and lawlessness and pain. His Higher Power is very real, if conditional and selfish, regardless of how he labels it.
So while the semantics get complicated, the essential beliefs in right and wrong, harm and justice, and truth and falsehood are universal. A rose by any other name will always be a rose. So too murder by any name under any jurisdiction will always be murder. The absolute nature of justice is obvious and the pinnacle of the development of the concept of justice, I believe, is Christian. Not religious; Christian.
Christianity is the world’s most hated religion, I believe, because it shames the others with their own limited humanistic inadequacy. This inferiority comes out in Islamic fundamentalist hatred, Eastern fatalistic envy, and even maybe occasionally in Western Christianese fundamentalist politics…that handy-dandy scapegoat also used by the Left’s secularists to lampoon all Christian ideals. Rome tortured Christ to death to protect institutional power structures that spanned Church and State and America would do nearly the same to any similar mindset. There’s nothing new under the Sun.
So no matter our choice of labels, we all have an orientation that either ethically, morally, and spiritually enhances or diminishes both our surroundings and ourselves and does so by some available measure, provided we are open to defining it honestly.
This states the obvious, I think.
Yet any number of illogical mindsets should fall by the way, including American materialistic Epicureanism – eat, drink, and be merry because there are, absolutely, no absolutes. Ironically it’s this pervasive hatred of a Higher Power that both fascinates and enrages the Left. Look around to see this notion brought to the brink of its credibility before its crowd turns to personal attacks.
I likely do not use terms like Secular Humanism and Socialism technically correctly, nor around here do I particularly care. And they may not even be the correct terms to use to describe our postmodern American situation. Although the SCOTUS nearly defined Secular Humanism as a religion, it may not technically be so…at least in the dictionary definition. If this makes some uncomfortable, I’d suggest installing some other term that acknowledges what functional atheists believe instead, that every view is morally equivalent and every structure of society designed and able to support true fairness and equality is entirely flexible.
From this we have the Living Constitution, and other poor logic that only serves to break down classic, proved, conserved beliefs based on tradition and prior proof of concept. From this we have the antithesis of Constitutional contractual ethics (where each citizen is sovereign, beholden to no State, self-responsible, and free.)
So if traditional moral ideals are the cornerstone of this Constitutional Republic (if some Western ethic and law was built on developed concepts like justice, presumption of innocence, and freedom of speech) then we cannot afford to separate those moral ideals – the Church – from law and governance – the State. And in fact the Constitution does not guarantee you and I freedom from religion; rather freedom OF religion…that same general set of beliefs the Founders obviously collectively had in mind when they spoke of them.
Precisely what religion, if any, they had in mind had a decidedly noble intent at its core. Were they fatalists? Did they believe in the moral equivalence of every philosophy or faith that came down the pike? Obviously not or we’d have no Constitutional foundation on which to build our essential core social beliefs such as that freedom of religion or freedom to dissent or freedom of the pursuit of happiness. Even happiness requires justice…
And this is what should trouble us about postmodern American opportunistic relativism. This everything-goes philosophy houses implied chaos at its core, and with a Roman-like thumbs-up/thumbs-down pure democracy to vote itself somebody else’s money and somebody else’s justice at the whim of the majority. It’s this State that I believed the Founders feared, and it’s this State that must be separated from the private sector; the Church. Meanwhile, it is essential that the Church, or the private sector’s noble morality must daily infuse the State in order to prevent its collapse. Even a Constitution can’t hold back corruption forever.
Secular Humanism is a convenient phrase for the state of liberal secular America. It fits the description of a consuming philosophical mindset, if not a dictionary-perfect practicing religion…although that’s more a semantics issue than a practical use. At Humanism’s core is the vast relativity of the pure chaotic democracy, that place where simple rule of majority force replaces rule of reason and fairness. And this secular state of mind and country is based on an obviously de-centralized Higher Power, or rather, an infinitely diverse mass of higher powers, each beholden only to the individual to do with what he pleases.
I’m aware that the Founders weren’t all of some specific religion as much as I’m aware that America isn’t a formally Christian nation in the religious sense. But I’m also convinced that America was built from the presumption that justice and fairness and freedom issued from a God who granted them as essentials of life. To think that we can now successfully replace those absolute ideals with a situational modification that flies on the winds of cultural and political change at any one instant and not loose our freedom is illogical. Unless we keep the inevitable corruption of central power at bay by constant vigilance and the highest ethics, we’ll lose this experiment much the same way so many others before ours have been lost. Not by natural events or catastrophe, but by the weight of our own corruption.
America may not be a religious nation, and the Founders may not have been unanimous in their beliefs, but America once was a free nation, a free nation that could never had existed if not for the highest principles, principles not coincidently found at the core of our best faiths.
Geoff,
It remains to be seen whether the Islamists in Chechnya will drive Russia closer to the USA. Certainly Putin has his hands full. The jihadi there have delared their intention to establish a Caliphate in the Caucasus:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php
(scroll down to the “interview”)
Meanwhile, the French have responded to Russia in their usual high-handed way:
“Indeed, we want to express both our solidarity over this act of terrorism against Russia but also we want to have all the necessary information and we remind Russia every time we meet of the need to respect human rights,” Raffarin said.
“It is natural that solidarity in the face of terrorism is balanced by this requirement towards our partners,” he added.
—French Prime Minister Raffarin
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06528713.htm
Go to news.google.com and search on <French Putin>. It isn’t pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3682-2004Sep7.html
Paraphrasing a comment I saw on the web: “As enemies, the French are no problem, but as allies, they are treacherous.”
If they did join the coalition, they would contribute less than 5,000 troops, that’s all they can afford.
You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition. We differ there. Who needs them?
We don’t need to get in a twist negotiating with France and Germany for permission to protect ourselves against terrorism, and against those who would supply terrorists with nukes. It’s futile. It will sap our energy and our will. If they want to follow our lead, that’s wonderful.
Our opponents, the Islamist jihadi, have a clear and non-negotiable view of what they want to accomplish and we need to be similarly steadfast.
The French and Germans have 5 - 10% muslim populations, causing them significant security concerns. It will be some time before the Alliance forms again, but form it will, once the attacks spread to France and Germany. The governments in both countries are already in trouble, as is Russia’s. Don’t tell me terrorism doesn’t work.
Whoever wins in November, we must pull together as a country. But I’m voting for Bush and his team as being the best to lead us through this, and I hope you will, too.
6gun,
Thank you for your answer I will read it over carefully when I return from my daily labors. It was a dn is an honest request. Thank you again.
Lyle
Thank you for printing this! A reasoned, and all-too-true look at the current state of the union.
6Gun - Thanks for actually joining the discussion.
You say,“So no matter our choice of labels, we all have an orientation that either ethically, morally, and spiritually enhances or diminishes both our surroundings and ourselves and does so by some available measure, provided we are open to defining it honestly. ”
I agree completely with this statement as a stand-alone.
You say, “I likely do not use terms like Secular Humanism and Socialism technically correctly, nor around here do I particularly care. And they may not even be the correct terms to use to describe our postmodern American situation. ”
Precisely. And this is where your arguments and justifications really start to break down and turn back upon themselves. Precision counts when you’re trying to communicate and make a point with others. If you use terms incorrectly or interchangeably or otherwise inappropriately, you will inevitably short-circuit the discussion. You end up with chaos, which is hardly an effective strategy. To pull this out of the ethereal realm, look at the problems Bush has with this issue. Has this tendency to ‘mispronunciate’ and/or ‘misspeak’ enhanced his credibility in any way? The same could be said for any of the politicians and public figures. The tendency to be sloppy in the use of our shared language sets the stage for misunderstanding, without which there can be no resolution of conflict, no ability to reach consensus, and no peace. Christ was a great teacher, even in translation three steps removed from the original (Aramaic?), and part of his genius was simplicity and clarity. Certain themes are repeated again and again, and they are clear and simple. There is also much embellishment that has been added in over the millenia, often with a political agenda attached.
You say, “...it is essential that the Church, or the private sector’s noble morality must daily infuse the State in order to prevent its collapse. Even a Constitution can’t hold back corruption forever.”
Once again, I agree. However, your house of cards is getting shakier. You speak of freedom OF religion, but now you’re laboring mightily to make sure we understand that someone, perhaps yourself, should decide what constitutes a religion. But then, quite rightly (or should I say *leftly*) you insert the private sector’s noble morality as an equivalent.
In your next paragraph you once again choose to provide your own idiosycratic definition of Secular Humanism, which is drawn straight from the 700 Club and its ilk, despite the fact that both terms have been discussed and defined earlier in this thread in order to provide a common frame of reference for this discussion. What you are really identifying here is probably closer to Hedonism than Humanism, and then you proceed to imply that those of us on the left are all Hedonists/Humanists/Animists/Atheists/unprincipled dogs or whatever. Ho hum. You can put lipstick on that pig, but it’s still a pig. A noble creature to be sure, but still no big white horse.
Finally, you say, “Unless we keep the inevitable corruption of central power at bay by constant vigilance and the highest ethics, we’ll lose this experiment much the same way so many others before ours have been lost. Not by natural events or catastrophe, but by the weight of our own corruption. “
Exactly! And it has been said earlier and needs saying again, that when even language becomes corrupted in the name of a cause, no ethical person can stand idle in the face of such onslaught.
We’ve heard the term ‘smoke and mirrors’ repeatedly from the right in this blog. I hold up your efforts, as genuine and honest as they may be (and I believe they are and I honor the effort), I believe that a close reading shows where the smoke and mirrors are located. The absolute genius of the Founders of this country was in their deep knowledge of both philosophy and religion, their intellectual muscle, and their vision. Though the pace of change was much slower in the 18th century, there were great changes in society during their lifetimes. They were aware of worlds beyond their own because they were voracious readers, thinkers, and in many cases talkers and travelers. They built us a Constitution that would be flexible enough to protect the fundamental values of freedom, justice, and fairness without endorsing any particular religious or spiritual practices. They planned for a living, breathing Constitution that was not only able to adapt to social change, but that could provide mechanisms to slow such change to a pace that is manageable. Thus, the long and uncompleted journey to full recognition of the rights of minorities, women, children, and the GLBT community among others. While this pace is too fast for some and agonizingly slow for others, it is specifically what has prevented the chaotic descent into the tyranny of the majority.
I still can’t help feeling that your personal concept of freedom of religion is actually one of freedom FROM religion. That is, you would prefer to be free of the necessity of accommodating those of other religious, spiritual or agnostic paths in your world. You have the mind set of a missionary. So go forth, but don’t complain when you meet resistance and please refrain from thinking that you can win with a gun.
MN - 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. I know you think liberal is a dirty insulting word, but how about moderate? It comes down to whether you want to be a nut or a nutcracker. As opposed to a ball buster…
“Steve, Steve, Steve - The military does not award the “V” with Bronze”
Yes they do. I’m surprised as a vet you don’t know this. I realize this is the latest talk radio attack point, but research this for yourself first.
“I am a Vet and I respect those that were awarded medals, but you gotta admit there are some questions as to the validity of Kerry’s medals.”
Only those manufactured by the partisan SWIFTVETS.
“A question for all of the noble, intelligent, morally superior liberals on this thread: Given the obvious fact that John Kerry cannot even run a halfway effective presidential campaign, (which is a great deal simpler than running this country)”
You’re right. John Kerry is not as effective as Bush is in using lies and distortions to run his campaign and presidency.
Huzzah, Garrison. Well said, man. Well said.
Me, I’m just Joe Average from a small farming town in Michigan. Kinda like Lake Wobegon but absent the interesting characters. Still, I read:
News report: (Reuters) - Friday August 6, 2004
“Halliburton Accused of Accounting Fraud
A class-action lawsuit against Halliburton Co.
contends that the world’s No. 2 oilfield services
company and several top executives intentionally
engaged in ‘serial accounting fraud’ from 1998 to
2001, court papers show.”
Sigh… so America suffers yet more scandal from scam-artists in Big Business. Damn, if it isn’t Enron it’s Tyco, it’s Halliburton, ...ad nauseum.
Lessee here.. Dick Cheney is CEO at Halliburton until 1999; s-elected to the Whitehouse with Shrub in 2000 after a political coup in the vote-miscount debacle; in 2001 Cheney secretly meets with Big Oil execs who create America’s “next energy policy” but won’t reveal participants’ names or disclose transcripts; by 2003, Shrub invades Iraq which has the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves; Halliburton wins all the big oilfield services contracts from the US government, only to be found out they’re overbilling American taxpayers by zillions of dollars; and now in 2004 Halliburton’s ‘top executives’ are uncovered to be intentionally defrauding us—the American taxpayers—many of whom worked to prevent this absurd Iraq war because we declare its entire premise unsound.
Sigh. ...pulling out the soapbox, standing on top, arching my back, forming cupped hands before my mouth and yelling unto the land:
*** Wake Up, American Voters!! ***
—————————————
Defend our country. Preserve our rights. Vote with your feet: walk to the polls in November. Vote out these cat turds who subvert our democratic principles and sabotage our financial security with their greed. Return our country to We The People. Wrest our destiny away from Republican EvilDoers who foreclose our future with their egregious pursuit of money and power. Long Live Democracy in America!
Bush/Cheney, YOU’RE FIRED.
[Can I get an Amen, folks? Lemme hear from ya at:
rich_carl@yahoo.com - peace & love, Rich Carl]
“Why is it that Kerry will not address the Swift Boat Vets claims? He can’t.”
He did. And the Navy records and various media investigations and eyewitness accounts already shot the SWIFTVETS credibility to nil. Can’t believe you guys are still beating this dead horse.
“How many people has Kerry been credited for killing in Vietnam? 20.”
Thought you guys claim he wasn’t in a single firefight.
[Can I get an Amen, folks? Lemme hear from ya
at: rich_carl @ yahoo.com
- peace & love, Rich Carl]
Phoebe/Joanna, I really, really didn’t want to get back into this but I will say that your pedantic whining continues to grate on me, as it would any reasonable person. As if you can resist getting in a last shot on an adversary you haven’t the slightest idea how to defeat except with even more pressumptive condescention. Sad that you hold yourself in such high regard when your reasoning is so empty.
Thanks for joining the discussion? Precision counts? SHaky house of cards? Yawn. Try and give me, or any of us, something that shows depth enough to reason points unstead of kicking those ten times your superior in the pants as they exit, laughing. I mean, c’mon; this is Limbaugh’s “one brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.” Laughable.
Go reread your post and tell me what part of that desperate mudslinging warrants a reply? Do you raise a single point? Any substance in there? Have I somehow missed anything in all that name calling?
Sorry, Phoebe/Joanne, your supreme elitist arrogance is no mask for your intellectual weakness and bias. Like the typical Bush hater, you have nothing but what you can build on the backside of someone you haven’t the scope of character to deal with one on one, face to face.
So Phoebe, all you can muster is just another empty parroting of the half-concepts and rhetoric of your side of the fence and it bores me to tears. Should you ever develop the ability to actually reason points of debate, you may wish to try again.
There. Now you’ve been given copious intentional openings, a personally hostile message, AND a Limbaugh reference in reply to your sad little parting nonsense. Let’s see what a person of your character does with THESE fine opportunities…have a ball.
“Best of luck managing your dementia, and may your useless endeavors provide you with the illusion of purpose. And don’t forget to pack your lithium.”
Real classy. You are a real credit to the the right, and speak volumes about their integrity.
“You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition.”
This may surprise some people (who don’t bother with facts), but France and Germany are already ‘on-board’ on the war on terrorism. They are participants in actions in Afghanistan.
Gee I wonder why they aren’t joining us in Iraq. Maybe because it was the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons?
AMEN, Rich!
6Gun - What are we to make of your arrogant lambast? I was respectful and responded to your points in an orderly way. Your gaseous response reminds me of nothing more than the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the snarling head mounted on the wall, surrounded by jets of smoke, thunders, “Do not question the Great and Powerful OZ!” Once again you descend into belittling, obscure name-calling (who is Phoebe anyway?), violent verbal imagery…Zell Millerish slobbering comes to mind. Ten times my better? At what? You’re a real credit to the pro-Bush side. Look behind the curtain all you vaguely uncomfortable Republicans. This is the group that has taken over your party. Hint: they hate you too. Pay a visit to the Club for Growth web site among others. It will be a real eye opener.
Blah,blah,blah-blah,blah;“unless we keep the inevitable corruption of central power at bay by constant vigilance and the highest ethics,we’ll lose this experiment much the same way so many others before ours have been lost”.“Not by natural events or catastrophe,but by the weight of our own corruption”.
6-Gun.I had to go back to the start of your self-effacing tirade to find out if you were for or against Bush.Still not too sure when you use terms like highest ethics and I see that you are a Bushster.You must be a firm believer in that if you can’t bully them with facts then you should be able to dazzle them with bullshit.
I have stayed on the outskirts of this hard infighting,because I don’t have the ammunition of some of you people,I’m just a simple man,but I just had to chime in when 6-gun went on an on and on and on—-get to the bottom line dude!I haven’t had so much smoke blown up my ass since I was in basic training.I need to see my doctor about too much air up my rectum.Ed P.
A Cry from an Arab American over the Russian Children
Nonie Darwish
www.noniedarwish.com
September 06, 2004
Among the Chechnyan terrorists that did the unspeakable in a Russian school yesterday were reported to be several Arabs. I am not surprised, but how many Arabs in the Middle East even try to connect the dots and link their current Radical culture of Islam to these unspeakable deeds around the world? They simply do not see the connection and unfortunately the world media is not doing its job in telling the Arab World about it. CNN feels that being “objective” is never to blame Arab culture and end up supportive of Arab views in its delivery of news in the Middle East and around the world.
Until age 30, I lived as a Muslim in the Middle Est. Horrible news such as those from Chechnya or other incidents in the Philippines, India, the Sudan or Pakistan, were always covered up and twisted to portray Muslim terrorists around the world as just victims of terrible discrimination. They were always portrayed as “freedom fighters” in the minority who need to rise against the majority Christian or non-Muslim population in their midst. The larger picture in these countries and the reasons behind the turmoil was never explained in any other way. I will never forget the prayers that many gave in support of minority Muslims all over the world who were believed to be the frontier for Jihad in spreading Islam in the “lost” world around them of Dar-El-Harb, the land of war to be conquered by the sword.
I once had a guest from Egypt in my home who was the most kind and wonderful man you will ever meet.
While watching Chechnya rebels on TV I saw him pray and cry for their success against the Soviet Union.
Praying for killing never seemed holy to me.
The World has been seeing Arab radical terrorism growing without much international outcry for half a century. I started seeing many men and women in my culture of origin turn into robotic monsters with a wish to destroy life on earth to go to heaven. Many thought it is only against Israel and its interests and ignored it. The World and its lazy media is not doing Arabs or the rest of the world any favor by sticking their heads in the sand like ostriches. Even after 9/11, many in the West and the UN are still finding excuses for terrorism.
Even the Arab’s best friends, the French, thought they will get special treatment from terrorists by selling out the US and supporting Saddam Hussein. But in the eyes of the terrorists the French were always just temporary friends until the right time came to strike; one enemy at a time.
Where are Muslim demonstrations against terror? All I noticed was celebrations in the Arab world after 9/11. Taking a stand against terrorism and for reformations in the Muslim world is viewed as an Israeli conspiracy. The very few courageous Arab writers who think and speak independently are often attacked and terrorized for their views, and accused of being puppets of the Zionists. Apparently standing strong against terrorism and for reformations in the Muslim world is viewed as “Zionist” conspiracy no matter how heinous the murders conducted by militant Islamists.
Since 1967 there have been thousand of Arab terrorist attacks. Israel had only one against the Arabs by a crazy man that was condemned by almost all of Israel’ s citizens. The Israeli government never tried the Arabs who beat the attacker to death after he surrendered. Yet I hear apologists for terrorism here cite that one incident as justification for the thousands and thousands terrorist attacks Israel and America over the years. Even worse, how many resolutions by the UN Commission on Human Rights condemning an Arab country for human rights violations have ever been proposed or passed? The answer is zero. But the number of Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations is 26. Imagine that.
Is there any doubt that much of the state-sponsored and culturally encouraged terrorism all over the Middle East by the Arab states is not a violation of someone’s human rights? Could it be that the UN is contributing to the problem?
After I saw the horror on the faces of the Russian children who looked malnourished and poverty stricken to begin with, I decided to make a stand against the Islamic culture of terror I grew up in and the madness resulting from its teachings. The intense and repetitive teachings of hate produce inhumane robots. Make no mistake about it, my motivation is out of love for the goodness in the Muslim world to prevail and that I do know exists. Accusing me of being part of a “Zionist conspiracy” is a joke at this point from the other side to cover up what is going on.
It is time for the world media and the UN to take a serious stand against Islamic, yes, Islamic, terror. The UN should immediately issue a very strong resolution condemning terrorism with serious consequences to Oil rich Arab countries that finance terrorism or teach that terrorists are heroes going to heaven. No “ifs,” “ands” or “buts” and no diluted language by the international media. The out-of-control culture in the Middle East needs a wake up call and a dose of reality. I cannot defend the cruel teachings and hate speech in my culture of origin any more. No other Arab with any integrity should. There is no cause in the world that should justify this insanity. I lived it and know what will end it. What is needed immediately is a united world stand against the Arab ‘s stagnant and barbaric view of the world and of themselves. The world cannot stand by, confused and equivocal about 9/11 and Islamic terrorism any more.
Please, America and the good people of the world, save my Arab culture of origin from itself.
Please.
It is time for the World media and the UN to make a serious stand against Islamic, yes Islamic, terror. The UN should immediately issue a very strong resolution condemning terrorism with serious consequences to Oil rich Arab countries that finance terrorism or teach that terrorists are heroes going to heaven. The out-of-control culture in the Middle East needs a wake up call and a dose of reality.
I cannot defend the cruel teachings and hate speech in the Arab world that I grew up with. No other Arab with any integrity should. There is no cause in the world that should justify this insanity. I lived it and know what will end it. What is needed immediately is a united world stand against the Arab ‘s stagnant and barbaric view of the world and of themselves. The world cannot stand by, confused and equivocal about 9/11 and Islamic terrorism any more.
Thanks to Ed! As usual, you cut right through the crap with no concern for the delicate sensibilities. I love that about you and I’m glad you’re standing in for Bernie while he drives the rest of the way to the first Kinko’s he can find in Atlanta. What passes for rational thought on the far reaches of the right is much like a fart: lot’s of hot air with a few microscopic particles of fecal matter to tease the nose.
US army to take back Halliburton’s $13bn contract after costs dispute
David Teather in New York
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
The US army is preparing to abandon a contract with Halliburton, the company formerly run by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, which has been investigated for allegedly overcharging it.
The contract to provide housing, food and other services to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, potentially worth $13bn (£7.2bn), is expected to be broken into smaller parts and opened to competitive bids in the next few months.
The Halliburton division awarded the contract, Kellogg Brown & Root, has been fighting a rearguard action against allegations of massive overcharging for much of the past year.
Last month Pentagon auditors suggested that the army should withhold payment of 15% of Halliburton’s invoices in Iraq, saying that the company had been unable to account properly for at least $1.8bn of the $4.3bn it had so far asked for.
The army is still considering the recommendation.
In a memo of August 25, cited by the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Tina Ballard, the army’s chief procurement officer, ordered officials to “immediately begin the transition to competitively awarded sustainment contracts for support of US military forces in Iraq.”
Halliburton has been swamped by controversy since it emerged that it had been given contracts to repair oilfields and give logistical back up to the army in Iraq.
To the Democrats Halliburton has become shorthand for cronyism and special interests in the Bush administration.
The logistics work was given to the company without a competitive tender under an existing 10-year contract to provide a wide range of contingency services to US troops.
The army is expected to invite tenders for six different contracts.
It is expected that they will include food services, housing and transportation.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said the company had expected the army’s decision.
“Such a transition is anticipated,” she said, “and planned for in all our contingency operations.
“Our contingency work in the Balkans was bid out in much the same way.”
She said Halliburton would review the contracts on offer before deciding whether to make a bid.
The memo is said to address the increasing frustration of army officers at the effort to reach a final estimate for the work being carried out by KBR.
One option apparently being considered is for the army to come up with its own quote.
Halliburton has accused its critics of using it to score political points against Mr Cheney.
But the company has provided the Democrats with plenty of ammunition.
Last month it admitted finding evidence that a consortium it leads had at least discussed bribing Nigerian officials to win a contract.
And it paid $7.5m to settle a claim by the US financial watchdog that it had failed to disclose an important accounting change during Mr Cheney’s tenure which allowed it to keep meeting Wall Street’s forecasts.
Special report
United States of America
World news guide
North American media
Media
New York Times
Washington Post
CNN
Government
US government portal
White House
Senate
House of Representatives
————————————————————————————————————————
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1299490,00.html
Kerry is back in the race, says latest poll
Analysis of swing states gives challenger small lead
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
Forecasts of John Kerry’s political demise may have been exaggerated in recent days, and he could still be clinging to a narrow lead in the US presidential race, according to a poll published yesterday.
The poll, by Zogby International, reflected the state of play in 20 swing states, and found that the surge in George Bush’s support there after last week’s Republican convention, was less pronounced than the double-digits suggested in two weekend polls.
Those surveys, in Time and Newsweek, triggered alarm and finger-pointing in the Democratic camp, and a reshuffle in the Kerry team. But other surveys have since suggested the Bush convention “bounce” was much smaller and the contest remains a close one.
The Zogby poll says the president has made up ground in many of the 20 battleground states, but Mr Kerry retains a slim lead in most of them - enough to give him a majority in the electoral college, if the vote was held now.
The college, which chooses the president, is made up of 538 delegates drawn from the 50 states and Washington DC, according to population. Assigning electors according to the way each state is leaning now, the Zogby poll gives Mr Kerry a lead of 273 to 222, down from the past two months, but a significant edge all the same.
“There’s no doubt that Bush got a bounce ... but no way is he up 11 points,” John Zogby, the head of Zogby International, said yesterday.
Newsweek showed the Mr Bush with an 11 percentage point lead among registered voters, while Time gave him a nine-point lead. But another survey by Gallup, CNN and USA Today showed only a one-point advantage.
The confusion may reflect the volatility that follows the impassioned speeches and allegations made at conventions. It may also be explained by different surveying methods, and some of it is simply a result of polls being taken over the Labour Day holiday weekend, when many Americans are away from home.
Charlie Cook, an experienced US election analyst, said: “To be dependent upon getting a representative sample over a holiday weekend is enough to make any pollster wince. Polling conducted this week, after people are back from Labour Day and had a chance to digest the Republican convention, will be a far better test.”
US electoral history suggests that leads established at party conventions can often dissipate in the last two frenetic months of the campaign. Al Gore had a double-digit lead over Mr Bush after the Labour day weekend in 2000, but lost it after lacklustre performances in the three presidential debates.
Mr Bush, who had not previously shown much aptitude for public speaking, surprised many doubters by avoiding serious mistakes and scoring a few points in the debates. Mr Kerry must hope to do better than his Democratic predecessor in knocking his opponent off balance.
The Zogby results suggest the president’s emphasis on his role as a wartime leader at the New York convention helped him reassert control in traditionally conservative southern states where Mr Kerry had been making headway before August, such as North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. But elsewhere the Democratic contender is holding on, and in some states - Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico and Washington - has even strengthened his position since the attacks made on his fitness to be America’s commander-in-chief.
Matthew Dowd and Doug Sosnik, top strategists in the Bush and Kerry camps respectively, both predict that as the race nears the November 2 finishing line, money and manpower will increasingly focus on three large swing states, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which have a combined total of 68 electoral college votes.
Both candidates have been spending more and more time campaigning there. Mr Bush is due to inspect storm damage in Florida today before heading to Pennsylvania. Mr Kerry will be in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Both Mr Dowd and Mr Sosnik forecast that whoever wins two of the three big battlegrounds will probably be the next president.
At present, according to Zogby, Mr Bush is ahead in Ohio by 11 points. Mr Kerry has a smaller edge of three points in Pennsylvania. Florida is a dead heat, as it has been for much of the year. By that reckoning, this election could be fought and won once more in the Sunshine State, currently being pummelled by hurricanes, just as it was four years ago.
Full coverage
US elections 2004
Weblog
US Vote 2004
Interactive graphic
State by state guide to the elections
Archived articles
US elections 2004: archived articles
More US news and analysis
Special report: United States
Special report: US elections 2000
News guide
The US media
Useful links
Democratic National Committee
Republican National Committee
————————————————————————————————————————
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1299538,00.html
It appears to me that Garrison Keillor is using the same type of rhetoric that he accuses the Republicans of using. He is an angry man - angry about his side not being in power. His words are hollow and full of lies that sound like truth.
I am not a staunch Republican and have been opposed to the foreign policy of the present administration and the domestic losses of freedom that are occuring under their watch. However, the anger and vitriol spewing from the mouths of folks like Garrison Keillor makes me wonder that President Bush may be on the right side of some of the domestic issues. You judge a man, not by his friends, but by his enemies.
Its great for Keillor to hearken back to the 1950’s. That time was unique in history. We had just won a major conflict without having any of the war actually touch our land (apart from Pearl Harbor). We were enjoying the spoils of that war in the 50’s. But the war changed the U.S.A. and society was ripped apart by the succeeding generation in the 1960’s. The Democratic Party ceased being the party of the little guy and took on every special interest it could sign up, no matter how perverted. The country has become polarized over these issues.
I could almost vote Democratic, except for the fact that the Democratic Party is defined by one issue now - a fanatical belief in the sacramental status of abortion. That is a defining issue and it loudly proclaims the difference between the two parties. The Democrats are the party of death, with little true concern for anything but petty convenience along with government largess for everyone who has their hand out. Keillor wraps himself in the constitution, but it is the Democratic Party that has found a way to twist the Constitution and abandon the principles of the Declaration - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - to condemn millions of unborn children to death at the hands of their mother. This “convenience trumps life” philosophy has turned our culture into a culture of death. When the Democrats stand up for all of life, including the unborn, I will begin to take them seriously on other issues. For now, all of their words ring hollow.
The Republicans are the party of life, with some semblance of restraint on the government’s power to confiscate any person’s wealth at any time and transfer it to another. Notice I said semblance of restraint. The Republicans have almost abandoned the ideals of limited and constitutional government. That is why I may not vote Republican this time, but am seriously considering the Constitution Party. It may be time to abandon the two major parties. Do either really represent us?
For Keillor to write as he has and not also condemn the Democrats, shows a petty anger. I see the same anger in all of the posts above. Everyone is just mad that their people aren’t in power. Hardly a one of the posts above show any sign that anyone is thinking, or even has the capacity to think rationally. We cheer when the other side gets a good tongue lashing without thinking about the words being spoken. Listen and analyze what Keillor is saying. He offers nothing constructive but a vicious rhetoric.
You may hate George Bush and his administration for a variety of reasons, but surely, the alternative is no better. And with the Democratic proclivity to embrace every perversion know to mankind, Bush is probably the lesser of two evils.
Brooks, thank you for posting the artice by Nonie Darwish. Though I’ve asked that we respect the victims in the Chechnya tragedy, she has spoken with heart and conviction and, best of all, suggested a first step in stopping the madness. I am encouraged that her passionate plea suggests that the UNITED NATIONS be that first step, and I believe that if we could move to end our dependence on Middle East oil, and the well estabished connections between our own ruling class and the corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia, among others, we could occupy a credible leadership position in this effort. So thanks again for a great post.
a wonderful, but frighteningly true commentary on the state of affairs in the u.s.a. count on my democratic vote in november
There are some aspects of your opinion that are correct. I do believe that this country is driven by fear. It is why over 11,000 people are killed by gun violence each year and why the canadians only have numbers with double digits. They do not follow “if it bleeds..it leeds” strategy. That and along with the break down of the American family. I am a very strong Republican but I vote on issues, not people. The way you view Republicans as you stated…is wrong stereotyping. As is the way you believe Republicans view Democrats. What is so wonderful about this country is the fact that we are able to voice our opinions. And I do not believe that just because Kerry has served that it will make him a better President. Just because you have been to the grocery store doesnt mean you can be the manager. I have not heard Kerry say anything to sway my vote. And I have looked and I will continue. The only point he is trying to make is that he served and that he isnt George Bush. Alright we have it now…move on. It is the right of citizens every where to use there vote wisely. Research, research, research! Read articles that voice the other side, find the truth not opinion! Try looking at the facts with out a bias outlook. But no matter what…VOTE!
Please, someone, get this wonderful narrative to the Democratic Party,and Kerry. I hope too that Michael Moore is made aware of Garrison’s keen insight. It puzzles me that so many seem to be “under the influence” of Bush. He and his administration have truly “flipped” and in my opinion “flopped” during his reign of Fear and Lies.
Boy do you have it all wrong. The party of the rich today is the democratic party. Look at the big money movie stars, rock musicians, trial lawyers, even the democratic nominess for president and VP. All pay taxes at the lowest rates ie less than 10%-20%. They want everybody else to pay more. The anti-Bush campainers haave raised 62 million compared to 0.5 million for the swift boat people.
Do you realize we have come through a recession brought on during the Clinton years? We have come through severe corporate scandals, a stock market bubble burst, engaged in a war not of our choosing, bailed out the airlines and travel industries, and are giving more money than ever to US National social programs. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
Stop the whining and be glad we have a president who is tryig to protect us all.
Moderates4Truth wrote: “He did. And the Navy records and various media investigations and eyewitness accounts already shot the SWIFTVETS credibility to nil. Can’t believe you guys are still beating this dead horse.”
—————
Well, I’m afraid I have some news for you that will prove to be rather distressing: The “horse” isn’t dead!
1) It is not the media’s job to discredit the Swift Boat Vets, nor is it their job to promote their claims as true. What IS their job is to investigate their claims, FULLY and OBJECTIVELY, and report the facts. But from the very beginning of the controversy the media automatically treated the Swift Boat Vets as though they WERE liars, and all of their coverage was run through this filter.
2) There are 254 Swift Boat Vets for Truth but barely more than about a dozen guys for Kerry (not a terribly good ratio). Now, the “fog of war” can clearly account for some of the inevitable discrepancies on both sides, but when you have a media reporting only on a few minor discrepancies of ONE side (the side they don’t like), overplaying them, and then ignoring the discrepancies of the other side, then what you end up with is people like you that live in blissful ignorance.
3) Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?
4) Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to withdraw the claim that he spent Christmas of ‘68 in Cambodia because the evidence has shown that he was lying?
5) Are you unaware that Kerry talked about receving news of MLK’s assasination while “in country”, although as it turns out MLK was assasinated before Kerry had even enlisted?
6) Are the Swift Boat Vets lying about John Kerry when they actually show video of Kerry giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of propaganda, both in the Dick Cavett debate and in his congressional testimony. American men were still being tortured in POW camps while Kerry was doing this, it’s all on video and in the congressional record. He slandered and smeared these men, has yet to apologize for it, and now turns around and whines that Bush is on a smear campaign.
7) Are you unaware that John Kerry has acknowledged that he met with representatives of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in Paris in 1970 and then afterward urged congress to accept Vietnamese proposals. Are you unaware the this is a violation of the Logan Act AND the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
8) Are you unaware that John Kerry began his political career as an antiwar activist, but that now he has done a complete 180 degree spin and presents himself as a war hero?
9) Here is a question that has been submitted in writing to the Kerry camp which has not been addressed:
On May 6, 2001, on Meet the Press, you stated that you had committed “the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers” in violation of the Geneva Convention. Specifically, you said you burned villages and “used 50-calibre machine guns, which [you] were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.”
a. Who ordered you to use 50-caliber machine guns on people?
b. How many people did you shoot with the 50s and how many of them were killed or wounded?
c. When and where did these shootings occur?
d. What other atrocities did you commit and when?
e. Which village(s) did you burn down and when?
f. Were any of your crewmembers present during the commission of any of these atrocities?
g. Did you order them to participate in the atrocities? Did they follow your orders?
h. Why were there no reports of these atrocities? Did you order your crew not to report them?
i. Are any of these incidents described in your Vietnam journal? If not, why not?
j. Did you observe thousands of (or any) other troops committing atrocities? When, where and what kind? Did you report them? If not, why not?
k. In light of your admitted atrocities, if Abu Ghraib guards found guilty of abuse should receive prison time and be stripped of command, why do you believe you should be considered for commander-in-chief?
10) Here is another question submitted to the Kerry camp in writing which has not been addressed:
You have consistently stated that you “never, never” attended the November 1971 Kansas City meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate six pro-military U.S. senators was discussed. Several newspapers reported that when confronted with FBI surveillance reports, your campaign “all but conceded” that you were in attendance , but claimed that this was a mere “footnote in history.”
a. Were you there?
b. Did you discuss the assassination of U.S. senators? What did you say?
c. Did you vote upon such a plan? How did you vote? Were any similar plans discussed by your group at any time? What were they?
d. If the plan was voted down, what steps did you take to insure that supporters of the plan didn’t carry it out anyway?
e. Especially considering that this took place in an era of political assassinations and assassination attempts (Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., George Wallace, etc.), did you report the discussion to any law-enforcement authorities? If not, why not?
f. When did you resign from the organization?
g. Do you dispute reports that you continued as a spokesman for the organization for more than a year after the Kansas City meeting?
h. If this was a mere footnote in history why have you repeatedly and vehemently denied you were there?
i. Did your campaign, as alleged in several newspaper accounts, attempt to get a witness to change his story about your attendance?
11) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.
On August 18, 2004, Judicial Watch filed a complaint and request for investigation and final disposition of awards granted to Kerry with the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy’s Board of Decorations and Medals. See the complaint by clicking here.
Senator Kerry’s DD Form 214 (a Defense Department form detailing a veteran’s service upon separation from the military) lists his “Silver Star with Combat ‘V’” and is posted on the Internet at JohnKerry.com. The Combat “V” device is never awarded with the nation’s third highest award for heroism.
Journalist Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times quoted a Navy spokesperson stating: “The Navy has never issued a ‘Combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.” Additionally, former Navy Secretary John Lehman was quoted with respect to the Silver Star citation as saying: “It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”
Furthermore, Senator Kerry’s records also reflect the award of a Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze stars. Military experts consulted by Judicial Watch believe Kerry’s brief tour of duty in Vietnam would have merited no more than 2 bronze stars on a Vietnam Service Medal. Many Swift Boat Veterans have questioned the circumstances of Kerry’s Purple Heart awards.
“There is something amiss in Senator Kerry’s service records. John Kerry should stop touting an award that has never been awarded to anyone in the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy needs to get on the ball and thoroughly scrub John Kerry’s service record by conducting a complete investigation of Kerry’s service,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And, of course, John Kerry may answer many of these questions by authorizing the release of all his service and medical records,” Fitton added.
12) From WorldNetDaily:
John Kerry’s biographer today called on the presidential candidate to release his military records and warned a Navy investigation into his medals could prove to be the “death knell” of his campaign.
In the past, Kerry has said he could not release some documents because of contractual obligations to Douglas Brinkley, author of “Tour of Duty.” Brinkley said he has no contractual claims to any of the papers.
“Clearly some of these military records should be made available to the press,” he said on Steve Malzberg’s WABC New York radio show today.
Brinkley also said that if the Navy investigation reveals deception in connection with Kerry’s medals, it could be the “death knell” for Kerry’s campaign. Professing uncertainty about what to make about the Swift Boat Vets’ claims, Brinkley said: “Right now it’s unclear. So we have to just wait to see what all this adds up to.”
“Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?” Brinkley wondered.
The Pentagon ordered an official investigation into the awarding of five Vietnam War decorations to the Massachusetts senator.
The London Telegraph says the inquiry is being carried out by the inspector general’s office of the U.S. Navy.
“It is the responsibility of all personnel to correct errors in official records,” a Navy spokesman told the paper. Another official said privately: “There’s a feeling that it’s time to deal with this thoroughly, once and for all.”
13) Why is it that whenever the Kerry camp is confronted with all this, all they can ever think to do is to change the subject by talking about George Bush? That’s called obfuscation.
14) Why is it that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, don’t find much of the above newsworthy? ALL of the above is independently verifiable and is thoroughly corroborated. Do you think, I mean, do you really think that if the above cited facts were true of George Bush, the media wouldn’t be all over it? Sheesh, the ensuing feeding frenzy would make your head spin.
—————
Ignorance is bliss, until truth wraps its unrelenting jaws around your windpipe.
Have a nice day.
Keillor should stick to humor and leave politics alone. It has long been known that Keillor’s politics ignore the self-reliance and determination of his first ancestors to this country, and instead favor socialism and the self-loathing advocated by Michael Moore.
The social policies of the political left, which began with LBJ, have been successful in bankrupting the country, morally and spiritually as well as economically. Such results should be obvious—even in Lake Wobegon.
Keillor should review the serious failures of his own political cause before throwing blame on W and the republicans.
Nice prose, Phoebe. Such a rich mine of opportunity; where did you learn to play all those leftwing cards, you crafty liberal you? They all of them on the table now?
“What are we to make of your arrogant lambast?”
Well, that’s up to you, Phoebe. I’m comfortable giving you opportunities, though…
Since you ask, first you might want to take a look at something—anything—of substance and get off that familiar leftwing cliches. I mean, that Bush Dynasty/Saudi oil stuff is catchy and all, but normal folks know that you could apply the same rhetorical device to any American president’s “relationship” with any overseas interest he/we find important.
About Bush, it would work like this: Bush is seeing to national interest by (1) keeping MidEast oil available, while (2) waiting for you treehuggers to agree to open up Alaska. Your call, Leftists. Gas ain’t over two bucks because Iraq started flying US flags now, is it? (And a hint: Take a look around at where we REALLY get our oil. It’s not your father’s Olds anymore, Phoebes.)
Now about Clinton, it would work like this: It seems Clinton took campaign cash thru Communist China, in violation of the law and without any interest but his own in mind. No Linkage to Onerous, Shady Foreigners implied by Big Media, of course, yet there is a fundamental difference between Bush and the Saudi “connection” and Clinton and the ChiCom Connection.
Little stuff like this makes it important to weild that rhetoric carefully.
See, I already also accept that you naturally (rhetorically) think I’m a gasbag and the Pubbies are a bunch of Nazis. We wear those badge with pride and have been for years, decades. I get that your mind rushes to these various Keillor-like enlightenments just ‘cause you’re a lesser-ability leftwinger. It’s your job and you take it seriously. Excellent.
That’s also my own approach to the Left’s mental illness, Phoebes, because the Left exposes it’s own simple collective idiocy for free. It’s like a no-work thing for us Vast Righty Conspirators.
See, we already get THAT part; Keillor made a complete ass out of himself all over again and used up all of your nouns and verbs and such. This is where you take it back down to reality and defend him, see? His wheels ALREADY came off; you’re in charge now.
“Your gaseous response” “nothing more than the scene in the Wizard of Oz” “descend” “obscure name-calling” “violent verbal imagery” “Zell Millerish slobbering” “credit to the pro-Bush side” “vaguely uncomfortable Republicans”
Phoebe, dig deeper. Heavy responsibility lies with you now. Your Etch-A-Sketch village idiot from Crawford with the Improper Ties to the Saudis is up ten points and you, personally, surely must have something to say aside from last year’s rhetorical stereotyping. Come on, girl!
But Joanne? Anytime you’re ready to unload real wisdom, I’ll listen. Promise.
Sally Anderson Moore wrote: “Please, someone, get this wonderful narrative to the Democratic Party,and Kerry. I hope too that Michael Moore is made aware of Garrison’s keen insight. It puzzles me that so many seem to be “under the influence” of Bush. He and his administration have truly “flipped” and in my opinion “flopped” during his reign of Fear and Lies.”
—————
Sally, in Michael Moore’s latest pseudomentary he makes a number of rather bold accusations against the President. If true, these facts would be monumentally scandalous for the President. Can you cite for me which of Michael Moore’s accusations in Farenheit 911 have been independently verified in the mainstream media? Can you explain to me how the combined and quite liberal news forces of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, et al have somehow not been able to verify the accusations made my Michael Moore?
And one last question for you Sally? Are you proud of the fact that Michael Moore has become the intellectual leader of the Democratic party?
I know that this will get lost in the shuffle,but I have to say this.If and when John Kerry wins the next election he is unlikely to win the next.I say this because of how these things seem to work.Kerry will have to fight to find all the embedded moles that Bushites have put into place to control and manipulate the system.I’m referring to the appeals court justices and the lobbyists and others that have been put in the EPA,interior departments etc..He will not look good no matter how well he works to root out these Fifth collumists.He will find it almost impossible to turn our economy around and to reduce the fantastic debt that four years of Bush’s reign have fousted upon the american people.This will make him look bad,even though no one person with just one term could do any better.The republicans will fight him tooth and nail and constantly bring up past failures and current failures.They will put innumerable roadblocks in place to slow down any kind of possible upswing during the Kerry years.Just so that they can get back in the SADDLE again.This has always been so in politics.It would take three or four terms of democrars to right this ship,the USS AMERICA,and then you would have to contend with corrupt officials in the democrat party.I try to be a realist which is why I am saying these things.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.Unfortunately,our whole thought processes have to be re-vamped.I believe that we have gotten so complacent and worn down by years of corruption that the american people feel that there is nothing that can be done to stop power mad corrupt officials.I truly wonder if we have it in us to clean house, maybe give up some of our laid back cushy feelings,and get down and get dirty and WORK to make a change in this country.Some people have brought up that we,all of us,need to get involved in politics at the grass roots level and work for a change.I believe that that is true.We need to not focus on money so much that we forget that money is why we are in this state of affairs.We need to concern ourselves with people and what we really need to live and prosper.Quality food,and housing and clothing and education to name but a few.We need to remember that those people that we are fighting want the very same things that we want.Food,a job,to raise their children in peace,and the vision of a future without war.Ed P.
The rightwing nuts on this board cannot defend the cronyism and corruption present in the Bush administration. Ideology doesn’t trump the facts.
The public is being swindled in so many ways it is unbelievable.
There is a massive and growing Islamic death cult in the world. UN resolutions and verbal condemnation won’t make it go away. Moral labeling won’t touch it. Any policy that permits its continued survival effectively condones it.
In its 9/8/04 weekly update, Cliff May’s Foundation for the Defense of Democracies reports, “An estimated 20,000 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban government during the 1990’s according to US intelligence. German intelligence estimates the number at up to 70,000.”
We know that these trained terrorists:
1) Are a death cult,
2) Recruit children to commit suicide to further the aims of the cult,
3) Are not capable of being rehabilitated,
4) Are mentally invested solely in their metaphysical beliefs,
5) Are disconnected from objective cause and effect,
6) Have a primary goal of inflicting asymmetric damage on non-believers,
7) Would prefer to have low level recruits do the dying for the cause,
8) Live proximate to the groups from which they recruit.
Our options:
1) Tolerate them.
2) Kill all of them.
3) Kill the groups of people from which they recruit.
Under option #1,
a) Innocent people get killed by the cult.
Option #1 is unacceptable.
Under option #2,
a) There are too many of them.
b) They operate invisibly to western eyes.
c) As long as some zealots remain the cult will continue to regenerate.
d) Innocent people get killed by the cult.
Option #2 is unacceptable.
Under option #3,
a) Groups of potential recruits can be located and killed.
b) Targeted groups would see the cult as determinative of their collective future.
c) Cult members would witness the consequences of their actions against third parties result in the destruction of their own recruitment base, basically making the cult accountable to people they are proximate to.
d) The supply of future recruits would dry up.
e) Targeted groups would reject the cult and actively persecute it.
f) Without new recruits the key players would only have the option of self-destruction to fulfill their metaphysical imperatives.
g) The cult would become self-limited and would die out.
h) Innocent people would get killed by anti-cult forces.
i) Killing innocent people offends Christian sensibilities.
j) Foreign policy that offends Christian sensibilities would be used to inflict political damage by the party out of power in the U.S.
k) Targeted groups would pressure their governments to strike back at the U.S. economically.
Option #3 leads to a conclusion. It is basically a policy of strict politically incorrect cultural accountability. This option could be implemented with a mixture of threat and action, with an emphasis on threat, but with sufficient action to substantiate resolve. Once begun there could be no turning back.
Note that under all 3 options, innocent people get killed. This is the essence of the death cult dilemma. There is literally no living with it.
Do any of you moderates on the board have another solution that takes into account the above factors, and that leads to a terminus for the death cult?
“But from the very beginning of the controversy the media automatically treated the Swift Boat Vets as though they WERE liars, and all of their coverage was run through this filter.”
You know what they say, fool me once, fool me twice…
“There are 254 Swift Boat Vets for Truth but barely more than about a dozen guys for Kerry (not a terribly good ratio).”
Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true. If they ‘served with Kerry’ how did 254 people fit on a 5-man SWIFT boat, even in shifts? The fact that their stories contradict each other do not help their cause. As you know, 9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me.
“Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?”
So? It still qualifies by Navy standards. Many purple hearts are awarded that way. Are you aware that Kerry earned 4 other medals?
“Are you unaware that Kerry talked about receving news of MLK’s assasination while “in country”, although as it turns out MLK was assasinated before Kerry had even enlisted?”
Nope, 4/68 Kerry was on the USS Gridley during the WESTPAC tour off Vietnam. That still qualifies as ‘in country’ by military standards, else you’re saying our navy personnel never served in Vietnam. Also, Kerry had been in the Navy since 8/66, did you know that? He’s an officer, he doesn’t ‘enlist’. You guys are just grasping at anything.
“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.”
Ah, Judicial Watch, another fake impartial right-wing site. Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’, only a Silver Star. It looked like a clerk’s typo on the citation. Again, making something out of nothing.
“Why is it that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, don’t find much of the above newsworthy?”
Maybe it’s because it’s not factual or news-worthy? Man you guys are paranoid. You think all these media would miss a nice juicy story? As they say, if it’s a couple persons, it’s probably them. If it’s many persons, it’s probably you.
“If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about them.” - Adlai Stevenson
OK Brooks - You’re good at framing. That’s a PR technique for those of you who don’t live in the world of corporate marketing. It can be tactically brilliant and simultaneously strategically flawed, even fatal.
Here’s how it works: Brooks tells you we have three options.Then he goes on to give an illusion of having considered all possible points of view, ending with the one he favors. This is almost always the most nuanced and complex, the most detailed and complete. That’s how the framing game is played.
Only one problem: there are more than three possible solutions. Among the many other options are inevitably some that will work effectively, but they don’t fit the PR goals embodied in Brooks’ post.
Ed wrote: “I know that this will get lost in the shuffle,but I have to say this.If and when John Kerry wins the next election he is unlikely to win the next.I say this because of how these things seem to work. Kerry will have to fight to find all the embedded moles that Bushites have put into place to control and manipulate the system.”
—————
Ed:
Moles?
From Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
Mole - a spy (as a double agent) who establishes a cover long before beginning espionage; broadly: one within an organization who passes on information.
——-
Well if you know of such moles perhaps it won’t be an altogether difficult task for President Kerry to ferret them out. But in the meantime, why don’t you provide us with an expalanation of who and where these moles are? How you came to know of their existence? And exactly how do they “manipulate the system”.
And lastly Ed, I want to a make you aware that the wonders of medical science have made significant inroads in developing effective treatments to combat paranoia.
Joanne,
I repeat, do any of you moderates [and I used that term loosely which is probably why you missed the question] on the board have another solution that takes into account the above factors, and that leads to a terminus for the death cult?
No one holds the answers to fanatics who want to kill. If you set a hornet’s nest on fire, an escaping hornet will fly into your eaves and burn your house down.
Many people are profiting from war and that is shameful.
Our own army is being swindled by Halliburton.
Fear and paranoia will destroy-ya.
Joe - I think you may be confused about some tax issues, and please don’t take that as an insult because it is not intended as such. The high income people you cite, by voting for Kerry, will be voting to increase their contribution to the national treasury. Kerry has proposed rolling back the recent tax cuts only on individuals making more than 200K per year, and extending additional tax cuts to those earning less than that. I’d like you to visit a web site: www.responsiblewealth.org
This will help you understand how some of the country’s wealthiest individuals are responding to the Bush tax cuts and their devastating effects on our long range economic prospects and the resulting impact on our future as a nation. There are many wealthy individuals on both sides of the political divide. It’s important to see that, and I think you will find it interesting to hear the point of view of those who have enjoyed the most advantages to speak to the issue of wealth and responsibility.
I personally find it appalling when our president states, as he did last week, that there’s no point in trying to tax the wealthy as they will just use accounting tricks to avoid their obligations anyway. This tars all people of means as tax cheats, then laughs at it as if it’s an inside joke. All I could think when I heard that was another of my mom’s old favorites: “Speak for yourself.”
One disturbing thread addressed by Keillor and many who posted is how many people (“minimum wage earners” etc.) who are harmed by bush-republican policies actually support these frauds. I believe it is a function of literacy and intellectual curiosity. Like Bush, they too lack a sense of history, critical thinking skills, even a rudimentary knowldege of policy and politics. A subliterate electorate is swayed by a subliterate president. Such people will never understand why the working class, and not just the academic left, supported Bobby Kennedy. They do not know how close this country came to being ruled by a wealthy oligarchy before FDR and the New Deal. Nobody even questions that the public airwaves are sold out to corporations, who give us reality TV and commercials that poison our children. Keillor, bless him, has masterfully woven various threads into a whole tapestry - something impossible to accomplish without literacy and history.
“Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true. If they ‘served with Kerry’ how did 254 people fit on a 5-man SWIFT boat, even in shifts? The fact that their stories contradict each other do not help their cause. As you know, 9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me.”
—————
Ah, the fallacy of the Strawman argument. Where in fact did I say that “if a lot of people say something it must be true”? No sir. What I DID do was to point out that you have a lot more veterans saying that Kerry is lying sack of shit than are standing up for him. Like it or not, that IS significant, and DOES warrant an investigation - an OBJECTIVE one.
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.
6Pack - Now I’m crafty, eh? Well, I guess that’s something, but coming from you I’m sure it’s not a compliment :-). That would be truly alarming.
So much steam is usually the indication of some very hot water.
Now, genius, link us to a single reputable poll that shows Bush up by 10 points anywhere but in his and your moist dreams of empire.
> No one holds the answers to fanatics who want to kill.
This is circular reasoning. One must look for a solution before a solution can be found.
Thank you. Unfortunately, you are likely preaching to the choir. There seems to be an endless supply of citizens who either don’t care to learn, or simply don’t care, about the lies and treacherous deceits. They only care about simplistic rhetoric promising a rosy future, and do not appear willing to hold the Republicans responsible for the problems they have created.
Last week, on the day Cheney embraced gay relations and the Republican platform called for the aboltition of any recognition of gay relationships, the head of one of the “family values” organizations appeared on television and stated the situation quite clearly. He denounced Cheney’s statement, stating that prohibition of gay marriage and abortion were more important to his people than health care, the economy or anything else. One cannot make inroads into the minds of the single-social- issue voter. That is the crux of the Reagan revolution: convincing southern, western and midwestern blue collar workers that they have more in common with a white multi-millionaire who hypocritically espouses “traditional” values than they do with a black or hispanic blue collar worker.
All we can do is speak out and vote. Again, thank you.
David Kirsh
Scott - I’ve been watching the Swift Boat thing carefully because I live in a swing state and, unlike most of the country, I’ve actually seen their ads. Can you acknowedge that Kerry has had his service in the Navy questioned and scrutinized repeatedly over the past 35 years? Are you willing to concede, as have many of the SBVfT’s that (a) they didn’t actually serve with Kerry in the sense that they ever laid eyes on him and (b) they are still very angry at him for his anti-war activities? Are you willing to consider that this anger, which is as legitimate as any emotional response, could play a role in their willingness to make statements about his service in the US armed forces? Let me know.
Part I
[MN]
“It remains to be seen whether the Islamists in Chechnya will drive Russia closer to the USA. Certainly Putin has his hands full. The jihadi there have delared their intention to establish a Caliphate in the Caucasus:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php
(scroll down to the “interview”) “
[G]
I read it. An eye-opener. It may also be useful for galvanizing that part of the world against Al Qaeda specifically, not just Chechen separatists, who are more of a mixed bag, IMO.
[MN]
“Meanwhile, the French have responded to Russia in their usual high-handed way:
“Indeed, we want to express both our solidarity over this act of terrorism against Russia but also we want to have all the necessary information and we remind Russia every time we meet of the need to respect human rights,” Raffarin said.
“It is natural that solidarity in the face of terrorism is balanced by this requirement towards our partners,” he added.
—French Prime Minister Raffarin
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06528713.htm “
[G]
The kind of thing to say _in_ _private_, IMO, not in public when we are confronted with this horrifying slaughter of innocents. SHEESH. Talk about a tin ear.
Granted, what certain functionaries did over here wasn’t exactly timely either. On the one hand, I have to partly agree with the “Old Europe” remark and such, but saying things like that publicly when cobbling together the most important alliance for freedom of thought in over 60 years, IMO, remains tin-eared too—and it had unfortunate consequences. Still, it is not comparable to a statement like Raffarin’s when addressing a massacre of these dimensions!!!!
It’s like saying to someone whose spouse has just died from a destroyed liver, “Oh, but you know there was just too much booze around in the house.” How insensitive and boorish can one get?!
I feel that, in general, one problem through much of the world today is an almost wilfully tin ear in many things. It’s almost as if a wilful disregard of others’ feelings is a badge of honor, a certificate of being macho, rather than sheer incompetence. Yuk. Clearly, the French are as guilty of this as we are, possibly more so.
[MN]
Go to news.google.com and search on <French Putin>. It isn’t pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3682-200 04Sep7.html “
[G]
Look, I’ve never exactly regarded Putin as a poster boy for democracy. He was a big wheel in the communist KGB after all! No question, his treatment of the press, etc., has been regressive after the reforms of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc.
But if one’s countrymen have just sustained the most deadly Al Qaeda massacre since 9/11, I suppose one is entitled to a bit of mouthing off. Yes, it may be inevitable for some to ask whether or not certain Russian excesses like the razing of Grozny, etc., may have radicalized the situation. One can’t really blame a reporter for raising the question. But likewise, in the first flush of grief and bitterness, I’m not disposed to blame Putin for losing it when the subject inevitably comes up.
Both people here were being all too human: a reporter just doing his job, and a leader, however flawed, convulsed by disgust and grief. In any case, I don’t measure reporters by the same behavioral yardstick as I do public officials. Their jobs are different.
[MN]
“Paraphrasing a comment I saw on the web: “As enemies, the French are no problem, but as allies, they are treacherous.” “
[G]
Candidly, this kind of broad-brush statement regarding any people always makes me uneasy. The fact that functionaries in a French government are behaving in a two-faced manner does not necessarily warrant extending that description to a whole people. I still feel, at the end of the day, that each people are made up of essentially the same mix as all others. Stereotypes—like Polish are stupid, Americans are boorish, Jews are greedy, Italians are horny, Africans are lazy, Russians are drunkards—rub me the wrong way and have caused too much unpleasantness throughout history not to be challenged, IMO.
I recognize that you did not cite this remark in such a spirit, but that remark itself has always made me a bit queasy, frankly.
[MN]
“If they did join the coalition, they would contribute less than 5,000 troops, that’s all they can afford.
You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition. We differ there. Who needs them? “
[G]
Al Qaeda, that’s who. Not their governments but their open societies. Let’s not forget much of the 9/11 planning appears to have happened in Hamburg, not Afghanistan.
While it may be the case that both France and Germany are still engaged in the Afghanistan effort, I have no doubt that their being estranged from the leader of the alliance, President Bush, impacts in dozens of different ways, small and large, on their pursuit of the overall goal: eradicating Al Qaeda. How cohesive can any alliance be if at least two of its most influential members are on the outs with the overall commander?
Yes, I recognize, as others here have pointed out, that Continental Europe already has vast experience in coping with terrorist groups like Bader-Meinhoff(sp.?), and so on. But the vicissitudes of _attitude_, pure and simple, can still deplete such efforts, IMO, despite however many mechanisms there may be in use.
This war with Al Qaeda demands the most close-knit cooperation on in-depth intelligence and on a hundred associated things as well. Safeguarding European cities from becoming another Hamburg can only be achieved, IMO, by abandoning an essentially truculent attitude currently in vogue in both Paris and Berlin. Unless both these governments abandon that stance, vigilance will be compromised—again, IMO.
The classic image of a chain being no stronger than its weakest link comes to mind. Hamburg has shown that many Al Qaeda operatives thrive in industrial capitals where their activities can blend into those of the general population. Only _one_ apathetic democracy is all that’s needed for such operatives to establish a foothold in an industrial center. In this case, we have at least _two_! And they are two of the most cosmopolitan and resource-filled democracies anywhere—outside of the U.S., of course.
How can one choke off the oxygen for Al Qaeda operatives effectively without every industrialized democracy, without exception, being 101% vigilant? Right now, I remain skeptical of France’s and Germany’s true attitude because of their truculence. I can’t help that. That gives Al Qaeda operatives the oxygen they need, IMO.
[to be continued]
Part II
[MN]
“We don’t need to get in a twist negotiating with France and Germany for permission to protect ourselves against terrorism, and against those who would supply terrorists with nukes. It’s futile. It will sap our energy and our will. If they want to follow our lead, that’s wonderful.”
[G]
I’m not talking about asking their permission for us to protect ourselves. I’m talking about giving them the proper wake-up call to protect their own cities, so Al Qaeda can be guaranteed deprivation of oxygen over _there_. This has to do with the dangers Europeans themselves may be exposed to if they don’t approach the dangers threatening them more seriously.
I forget where, but somewhere I read of some television comedian, either in France or Germany, who openly scoffed at the dangers posed by Al Qaeda—and who was vociferously applauded. That misbegotten mindset is what has to be addressed more seriously by the commanders of the alliance—and in this case, those commanders just happen to be the United States. The buck stops here.
I’m not talking about censoring such comedians at all. I’m talking about a more public and serious way of addressing a strain of skepticism in those two countries right now that I find truly alarming.
In fact, if certain Continental European state capitals approach the dangers threatening them in too half-hearted a way, that also impacts dangerously on us as well. Qaeda operatives there and separate Qaeda cells can operate with more impunity there (vide Hamburg) in planning further attacks over _here_, as well as attacks over in Europe. Thus, our own national security requires that governments like France’s and Germany’s be less truculent than they are today. Not only they are threatened by their attitude problem. We are too. So we have to work to change the attitude. It’s that or more Breslans(sp.?), both here and abroad.
[MN]
“Our opponents, the Islamist jihadi, have a clear and non-negotiable view of what they want to accomplish and we need to be similarly steadfast.
The French and Germans have 5 - 10% muslim populations, causing them significant security concerns. It will be some time before the Alliance forms again, but form it will, once the attacks spread to France and Germany. The governments in both countries are already in trouble, as is Russia’s. Don’t tell me terrorism doesn’t work. “
[G]
Of course, terrorism works. That’s one reason why it galls me that people in France and/or Germany may have to die before the kind of proactive measures we have seen in Britain, for instance, are adopted. Must we sit back and let France/Germany have their own Breslan(sp.?) before their governments take this seriously? Do their people deserve that?
I have been to both France and Germany, and I have met some wonderful people there. Why do they have to undergo some horrendous tragedy before their truculent governments are persuaded of the gravity of this threat? Can’t we try harder to forestall the horror that may be coming their way? Try harder to make their governments see reason?
[MN]
“Whoever wins in November, we must pull together as a country. But I’m voting for Bush and his team as being the best to lead us through this, and I hope you will, too”
[G]
Well, I will take another look at Bush if he can pull off a real strengthening and multiplying of the alliance before Election Day. We will see.
I would also like to add that I am a fiscal conservative, and I am not too happy with the rather alarming deficit that’s developing. Yes, I know that Kerry is not a poster boy of fiscal responsibility. But at least he’s addressing this problem (a tiny, tiny bit), whereas Bush, IMO, hasn’t really addressed it seriously at all. He tends to repeat certain generalities and then moves on—that’s my impression, anyway.
Still and all, a much-strengthened alliance remains my chiefest concern of all, since I don’t believe the people of Continental Europe deserve another Breslan(sp.?) and I believe it essential that Al Qaeda have its oxygen 101% cut off.
Look, I want to thank you for engaging me in this patient way, since I am sometimes quite an ornery and pesimistic kind of guy. It just irks me that a clear and present danger like this one cannot be addressed in a more concerted and close-knit way by all concerned.
Sincerely,
Geoff
I wrote: ““Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?”
And M4T replied: “So? It still qualifies by Navy standards. Many purple hearts are awarded that way. Are you aware that Kerry earned 4 other medals?”
—————
Acutally, sir, a self-inflicted wound DOES NOT qualify by Navy standards. It has to result from enemy fire.
Actually, sir, Kerry fostered the idea that it had occurred under enemy fire.
Actually, sir, some of his other medals are suspicious and there is already a full investigation underway. I already pointed this out. Don’t ignore that I did.
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”?
Are you unaware that your spinning?
“Nope, 4/68 Kerry was on the USS Gridley during the WESTPAC tour off Vietnam. That still qualifies as ‘in country’ by military standards, else you’re saying our navy personnel never served in Vietnam. Also, Kerry had been in the Navy since 8/66, did you know that? He’s an officer, he doesn’t ‘enlist’. You guys are just grasping at anything.”
—————
Yep! Read the quote by Kerry. You’re spinning again.
You get into the semantics of the word “enlist”, and then you turn around and say “You guys are just grasping at anything”. You should probably avoid doing in the previous sentence something that you accuse the other side of doing in your following sentence. If you wanna play “gotcha” with the word enlist, that’s fine, but you still have to deal with the following:
John Kerry (in a prepared speech at an MLK celebartion in 2003): “I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam, when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King.”
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.
Today’s lesson: This is yet another Kerry “discrepancy”. One, that if instead were true of the Swift Boat Vets would lead to the inevitable “See, they’re all a bunch of big fat liars”.
Define “reputable” polling, Phoebe. (While you’re at it, define “moist dreams of empire” too, if it’s not just more of your wincingly cute and disposable prose. Wait! Are you Keillor?)
Leftist preemption being what it is I just want to be sure of the “precise” nature of the language. Wasn’t that about how you once put it?
Remember, keep it substantive. Us mouth-breathers already get the nuanced rhetoric.
MT4 wrote: “Ah, Judicial Watch, another fake impartial right-wing site. Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’, only a Silver Star. It looked like a clerk’s typo on the citation. Again, making something out of nothing.”
—————
1) Trying to change the subject from John Kerry to your take on Judicial Watch is a transparent attempt at obfuscation?
2) Would a negative claim against John Kerry have to come from a left-wing group for you to take it seriously? If that were the case, then conveniently enough for you, NO claim made against him is to be taken seriously.
3) 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.
4) You also didn’t address the other discrepancies cited in the complaint.
What’s the matter Scott? Is that one section of my little piece the only thing that you liked?
I know that some one more famous than I,to paraphrase said ,that a little paranoia is a good thing. So,I don’t worry about a little paranoia,Scott.
I don’t like a lot of name calling Scott.I used Bushite to indicate some one who is in service to King George Bush.As for moles,if you knew who and where they were than they wouldn’t be very good moles then,would they.I do have one example of an attempt to put in place a federal appeals court justice in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,which is responsible for cases heard from Alaska and the american west,and environmental law for 485 million acres of public lands. William Myers,was chief attorney for the Bush Interior Department where he helped shape the weakening of Administration policys on the Endangered Species Act.He also contributed to the curbing of federal protections to prevent destructive mining and overgrazing of public lands.Before joining the Interior,he served as a lobbyist for the National Mining Assoc..Myers was executive director of the Public Lands Council,a trade association promoting the interests of ranchers who graze sheep and cattle on public lands,and director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
Not a single member of the American Bar Association’s committee that rates federal judicial nominees found Myers “well qualified.“More than a third rated him “unqualified.“This is just one example of the fox guarding the chickens.
Well,maybe another example of what Mr.Bush thinks and feels for the environment.William HaynesII,the Pentagon’s top lawyer,who advanced the memorable argument that when the U.S. military bombs migratory birds on an important Pacific ocean nesting island,birdwatchers should be pleased.
Under Haynes’ reasoning,he wrote in a legal brief,killing birds makes them more scarce,and"bird watcheers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.“Haynes added that bombing was good for the birds too,since it protected them from"human intrusion.“The case was taken to federal court and the judge in the case rebuked Haynes and his team,writing “The Court hopes that the federal govenment willl refrain from making or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future.” Meanwhile President Bush has nominated MR.Haynes for a seat on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—a lifetime appointment.On his Senate questionaire,Haynes listed the bird-bombing case as the second most significant of his career.Where do you guys find these people? Now I admit that these two guys are not what you would call good moles,but they are just a tip of the iceberg for the number of embeds that certainly must be sprinkled througout the system.It will take years to get these leaches out of the system. Have a good day Scott.Peace and love,Ed P.
Scott, prepare for a personal assault. Your constant driving to the heart of the issue makes Leftists mad. Remember that their preferred media, like Prairie Home Village Idiot here, is images- and charicature-intensive; facts speak much less loudly than appearances to the Left. (Which came first, the intellectual chicken or the Keillorism?)
But seriously, you do well to expose the intellectual emptiness behind the Left and you’re good at it. Just as Phoebe/Joanne can’t and won’t answer Brooks on the most essential topic on the table, namely how to stay alive in an Islamofascist world, you likely won’t get much but more pointless crap about Kerry’s many documented lies.
And just as with the mentally unstable who cannot face the facts about themselves and their problems, all we’re likely to get from the Left around here are those images and fantasy and wordplay. Note Phoebe’s lead to Joe: Lead with the push to the face then offer the helping hand. No facts, just pure preemptive debate strategy.
With the ill it’s about the keeping of appearances. With the postmodern Left it’s clear it is too.
I wrote: “Why is it that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, don’t find much of the above newsworthy?”
And M4T replied: “Maybe it’s because it’s not factual or news-worthy? Man you guys are paranoid. You think all these media would miss a nice juicy story? As they say, if it’s a couple persons, it’s probably them. If it’s many persons, it’s probably you.”
—————
Ahem, but did you not earlier lecture me about a certain fallacy (which I did not commit), and I quote you, ” Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true.” Then you turn around, at your convenience, and say that “if it’s many persons, it’s probably you”. I hate to ask you to put your “nuance” aside for a moment, but can you please make up your mind one way or the other on whether or not this is fallacious argumentation.
But more importantly, this quote of dubious merit does not really address the ISSUES I raised now does it? More obfuscation. I think maybe you know by now that this is not really going to work on me.
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.
OK 6Pack. I’ll give you one more chance to make a complete and utter ass out of yourself. This is really fun, but I have other things to do to get out the vote for Kerry.
By the way, Ed, you’re doing a great job with Scott and my hat is off to you. It would seem to be a waste of time, but I’m counting on all the folks who read these things and don’t post to take something useful from these exchanges. I’m sure 6Pack and Scotty are with me on that!
6Pack - you pick the poll. Just give us the link, pal. Then we’ll shine a little bright September sunshine on it and see what we see. We’ll be waiting! Take your time - your guy may pick up a little today, who knows?
Does anyone out there know what or who “Miss Phoebe” refers to? 6Pack doesn’t want to reveal the source of this witticism, and I admit I am curious. I like to really *get* the insults hurled in my direction.
Phoebes, it’s just a little ironic subtlety; a minor guilt-by-association; that your self-esteemed place atop the seething masses of room temp-a-chure IQ, border-defendin’ Righties is so regal, so Miss Phoebe-like. Just popped into my lil ole rural mind, it did.
Think of it like your own personal version of…6Pack! Yeah, a Leftwing equivalent of all us truckdriver Pubbies out here practicisin’ our 6-gun slingin rights and such. Yeeha and she-it, maam.
As far as the polls go, Miss Phoebe, comb thru the last month and you’ll find all manner of “reputable” polls—including Time and Newsweak—placing the little shooter from Tex-ass up by, wait for it, eleven points.
More interesting to me, not being a Bush supporter as much as I’m a Kerry critic, is the inevitable Nov 4 outcome. Were I a bettin’ man, I’d put a thousand down on the table between us, Phoebes. Right next to Mom’s tea cup.
Oh wait, WAY more interesting to me, Phoebes, is your upcoming answer to Brooks: How DO we deal with A-rabs drivin’ jets into New York City highrises and sensitive government installations and Washington DC and goin’ an’ killin innocent folks?
Let’s drop the stereotyping, Joanne. I find your incompetence on the issue offensive to me as an American and a father. Until you can drop the bullshit and speak to the issues instead of using this place as your own little sounding board for half-baked ideas and feel-good nonsense, you can stick it. Four thousand of your countrymen, 75% on our own soil, died so far to protect your right to spit on their graves with your buddy Garrison K. A few hundred Russian SCHOOLCHILDREN were shot in the back.
And all you can do is prance around the issues. You make me sick.
Okay Ed, you win. I’m writing a letter today to the fine people at Merriam-Webster and also the ones at Oxford to let them know that you’ve singlehandedly redefined the word “mole” to include anyone having anything to do with the Bush administration that does anything you don’t like.
But I’m still confused by one thing: You say “if you knew who and where they were than they wouldn’t be very good moles then, would they”. Well then, how do you know that they exist? Do you understand that you, as the accuser, have to meet the burden of proof? The onus is on you.
Anyway, I know you’re not going to let any of these glaring contradictions get in the way of your irrational hatred for George Bush. And why should it? Your hatred trumps everything else, including the need for rational argument. You’re a good liberal Ed.
Under this administration my son almost lost his home. He was another skilled vetran who couldn’t find a job. His children had no health insurance. Almost a thousand of our young people have been killed and approximately 7,000 maimed in Iraq. Some of them live(d) in my town—and yours. The reason we sent those soldiers to fight is still a mystery. My 81 year old father—a WWII vet, couldn’t afford to live in a trailor park if he didn’t get his prescription drugs from the VA—and those vetran benefits are being whittled away every day. Seniors who have traditionally voted Republican need to look at what has been stripped from their own retirement benefits before going to the polls in November. Our children and grand children will inherit the biggest defecit in the history of our nation. The president inherited a surplus from the previous administration—and did initiate tax relief. Families like that of my son who have children DID get a tax rebate—my son’s was $1,000. Hmmmmm—and how much did you get Mr. Cheney?
The current administration has wrapped itself in the flag and called itself holy. Patriotic music fills the air and multimedia presentations of smoking ruins assalt our senses. But it would seem that a large part of the electorate can’t see that the very flag the bush adninistration drapes around it’s own holier-than -thou shoulders is the one being used to strangle not only our soldiers in the field—but us.
Excuse me: Three thousand died at home and another thousand died overseas in the Iraqi hellhole defending our rights to be complete whining jackasses. I’m so incensed at the sheer idiocy on the Left I misspoke…
Our country was absolutely made great by angry people. He doesn’t think the people dumping tea in Boston Harbor were angry!!?? LOL!
6Gun:
Thanks. And you’re right of course. I’ll be very disappointed if within the next few hours one of these geniuses doesn’t liken conservatives and/or the Republican Party and/or me to the Nazis. To be followed no doubt with whining about how mean-spirited we knuckle-dragging troglodytes have become. I really don’t know how much more of their noble intentions, tolerance, and nuance this country can withstand.
Grow up, Patricia. THIS government doesn’t owe you a damn thing but your freedom to say stupid things in pursuit of your own peculiar happiness.
The 03/04 deficit is bad due to war. The 100 year national DEBT is worse than bad due to leftist social programs to ninnies like you. Go look it up instead of whining.
Did you know that roughly 50% of the US GDP goes to taxes? How do YOU factor the difference between that impossibly large number and the paltry 300B that went into defending us from Islamofacism? From death from the skies in the form of thousands of lbs of raining fire?
Hadn’t thought that far, had you?
How about the fact that the largest coalition in the history of time mounted the action in Iraq? Or that nearly the entire damn Congress voted for it? And that some ninety percent of your countrymen insisted they do so?
How impossibly selfish can you be? How relativistic; how myopic; how self-serving? You’re what’s wrong with this country: You really don’t want a Constitutional Republic and rights and freedoms and RESPONSIBILITIES.
You want a King.
Well, well, well 6 - finally we find common ground. I have a Class A CDL with hazmat, tanker and double endorsements. So if you really are a trucker, stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it - but not til after your next wet test. I also know how to shoot a handgun and a rifle, so perhaps we also share those skills. I may be a middle-aged married woman, but one that may surprise you yet.
I would not find it hard to believe you are a trucker, having suffered through the inane psychotic chatter of your brethren on the CB in the middle of the night. On reflection though, I think it’s just another example of your tendency to employ stereotypes - favorite tool of the slow learner. Your increasing level of verbal violence is perhaps cathartic, but does nothing to enhance the dialog. You don’t like it when Keillor does it, so why not get up out of the mud?
For all you non-truckers reading this thread, allow me to also say that the majority of professional drivers are not brainless morons with the pathologies so evident in much of what 6Gun has written today. But some are, so leave a good interval, don’t drive next to them, and never cut them off for any reason. Just proceed to the next exit. They are, in fact, dangerous - particularly when they’re listening to Limbaugh and talking on their cell phones at the same time, all the while stuffing themselves from a bag of Cheetos on the dashboard.
This is perhaps one of the best articles I have read to date that sums up our current plight with the right mixture of angst, biting truth, and wit; in other words, some of the very characteristics lost on this current administration. Keillor is RIGHT ON THE MARK here, almost frighteningly so.
I can’t even bear to look at Bush speak, and listening to him is so painful now it’s almost impossible to endure. His words and body are almost completely disconnected. I sit staring at the screen, watching and listening in disbelief, wondering when I will wake up; more importantly, when will THIS COUNTRY wake up?
The very thought of another four years of this administration is almost unimaginable. Succinctly put, I dont think the World can take another four years of George Bush and handlers. Amazingly enough, the American populace eats this pap up. No matter what is said, no matter how bold the contradictions or implausibility, the American public seems to nod their head.
IS anyone really listening?
“Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.”
In a nation where less and less read and many that do are seemingly unable to separate the wheat from the chaff, the truth and subtle distinctions are lost in the haze of “chatter”. Patriotism is almost turned into a parody and the USA is #1 – God is on OUR side mentality heads to the front of the pack, trampling over any and all that question. Meanwhile, our nation is making some of the most troubling decisions I have seen in my lifetime. This next election is perhaps THE MOST important we have seen. If only I felt confident that good will come of it.
“Seniors who have traditionally voted Republican need to look at what has been stripped from their own retirement benefits before going to the polls in November.”
—————
I’m still waiting for someone to point out for me what part of the Constitution or The Bill of Rights tells us that it is the government that is responsible for the individual and not the individual.
Good one, Joanne. Caught on, have we? Parroting turnabout your new device?
Nah, you’re above that; I can tell.
So speak to the issues, provided that’s a suitable following act to Keillor.
Or maybe I’m expecting too much?
Kelly croaked:
“Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.”
No, Kelly dear; it’s written: “Republicans: The No.1 organization at recognizing the rest of the deaf, dumb and dangerous world needs work.”
News Flash: The US is sovereign. Don’t like it, move.
“...what part of the Constitution or The Bill of Rights tells us that it is the government that is responsible for the individual…”
The “Living,” non-contractural, make-it-up-as-you-go part.
Kelly wrote: “This is perhaps one of the best articles I have read to date…”
——-
Kelly, you need to read more. And by the way, it’s not an article, it’s a rant.
As for the rest of your post, thank you. At last, I’m finally starting to gain some insight into why exactly liberals can relate so well to John Kerry’s most notorious characteristic: Incoherence.
Kelly wrote: “This next election is perhaps THE MOST important we have seen. If only I felt confident that good will come of it.”
——-
Don’t worry Kelly. Good will come of it. And as a result you’ll be given more control over your own money and financial planning. Or is that somehow objectionable? If so, why?
Just as I suspected, 6Pack. You’re shooting blanks. Big tough trucker, huh? Wanker is more like it. Get a job. I had one for years, you big baby, which is why I now have time to enjoy the fruits of my responsibly-lived life, which includes having intelligent disagreements with people who have the skill and brains to engage in something less disjointed than what passes for dialog in your circle of influence…which at the moment only seems to include other nutjobs like Scotty.
And BTW, what’s with the paternalistic tone? So far you’ve told me, Scotty, and everyone else what to do, how to respond, and how we should be living our lives in general. Scotty probably likes and needs that, but I’ll pass. Do you have any friends or do you just subject your immediate family and strangers on the internet to your pearls of wisdom? Still waiting for a link to a poll taken in the past 48 hours showing Bush 10 points ahead. Guess what! There aren’t any!
As to defining my terms - I’m speaking Engish, Dud (and no, that’s not a typo). You don’t know the meaning of moist? Look it up in the dictionary if you can find one.
If Kelly is as smart as I think she is, she will ignore you. As if you would even be able to get up a good rant if you tried. LOL
Scotty boy take a deep breathe and go out and shoot yourself.
6gun why don’t you join him. You wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and kicked your tired ass. Lost little sheep, I feel so sorry for you, not!!!!
All of you tight righties haven’t got a clue. Your country is going away and you sit around arguing with people who would like to help all of us get it back. Your idiots X 10. The powers that be have all of you running in circles like good little sheep biting the guy in front of you instead of turning your attention to the one’s that tied you up in the first place. I have serious doubts that any of you are worth saving. Petty arguments about sideshow events. Could you be anymore brainwashed?
Anyone who can’t see that is what GK is trying to tell you then you are fools. Sure he has to pose it as a democrat(how else indeed!)but you should make an effort to see the big picture. It is you who can’t see the forrest for the trees. You pick at his words instead of thinking about what he is meaning. If I drew you a picture you would argue about the medium I used instead of appreciating the picture.
Yes it is time for a “We The People” political party, but in the meantime…....let’s take a step in the correct direction.
Yes I can not stand bush, I am a veteran, I was drafted and I served, need I say more. But I also have a very large disatisfaction for what he has done to this country and I where he has led us.
We the people stopped one bad war in Viet Nam and we the people will stop this one. We do not need to go to war to make things better for our country and the world. That’s a fact jack.
We should be all on the same side, not this constant arguing, dividing, hating. That is what bush has brought us. Not Clinton, not Kerry, not Gore. bush and the republican’s. We can and we will do better.
We are not safer now than then. All the data concludes that.
The country is headed in the wrong direction, all the poles support that.
Terrorism is on the rise world wide. Facts backed by numbers.
How many millions of jobs lost since gw appropriated the presidency? Fact (ps can the Clinton blame game boy’s, it’s a tried old record).
Failed No Child Left Behind program. Fact.
Failed presciption drug program. Fact.
Huge deficit. Fact.
GW will not change course. He says that.
Need anymore real “TODAY” reasons?
Try to concentrate on the task at hand today.
And by the way Scotty boy. You aren’t good enough to lick John Kerry’s boot’s. You can take all that crap and shove it you know where. Guy’s like you only need one thing to teach them a lesson about respect and that’s a good asskickin.
You probably have gotten away with bs like that all your life and someday you will have to pay. Your so full of yourself that you will eventually explode.
bush will loose again and this time the people’s will, will prevail.
Power to the People.
P.S. Here’s a paper written by someone to try and help some of you begin to see the forrest.
Wake up people.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=vidal
“News Flash: The US is sovereign. Don’t like it, move.”
How nice it is to see the trolls out in full force. Ignorance is bliss. Dont like it, move??? Nothing like the “love it or leave it” contradiction of EVERYTHING this country supposedly stands for. Do you always defeat your own argument within a single sentence? This takes a certain skill, I must admit.
As for Scott’s take on the incoherence of the rest of my post, this only speaks to his evident inability to actually discern meaning and innuendo, this within his own posts or others.
I wonder what twirls within your skull during one of the Bush press conferences? Perhaps the Bait and Switch of bin Laden - Saddam makes more sense…
Backing an administration that has actually made this world and OUR OWN COUNTRY a far more UNSAFE place by fueling the recruitment of terrorist hatred to a far greater level is not my idea support. When people like Pat Buchanan start saying the same thing, you KNOW you have to worry!
kh
Joanne said, “Only one problem: there are more than three possible solutions. Among the
many other options are inevitably some that will work effectively,...”
Sooooo…...a clue or two perhaps? You don’t need to take a lot of time or be verbose. What’s another option?
No Scott,you must have misunderstood me.I said that you won’t be able to find the moles,because that’s their job.The references to the judges was just an example of what is on the surface of the cesspool not what you can’t see in the depths.Well,since you are the well of all knowledge,maybe you can tell me.Can moles live in a cesspool?Just curious.
Much like you Scott I don’t have to prove anything!I’m not the expert here Scott,that would appear to be the crown that you wish to wear.I can see that there is wrong on both sides of the aile here,but you only want to see that I just hate Bush,when it is crooked politicians that I really have disgust for.I have said that Kerry is just a tool to get a greater evil out of office.Then MAYBE we can work on the lesser evil and buy some time for honest and competant people to get into office and right this ship.
Oh,about that liberal thing.I pretty much have always been confused about that left and right and liberal and conservative thing and have pretty much ignored those particular lables.I just see it as it is,we are all mostly a combination of what goes on in our lives. I only look to see what does a persons actions indicate the kind of person that they are.I would like to do a little amateur psychology here.I believe that if everyone here were too ignore you that you would explode all over this site.I believe that you desire attention.You have that look at me,look at me,look at me,mentality.Hell,you probably don’t even care about politics.You just want to be the center of attention.Now it’s ok little boy.It’s ok to grow up.You’ll be ok.Mommy still loves you,even if you would be a failure.Ed P.
Kelly, I’ll vote for John Kerry on one condition:
I want you to go look up everything John Kerry has said regarding the Iraq war, EVERYTHING, including his voting record. Then, reconcile the many contradictions (“nuance” in liberal speak), and tell us once and for all what his actual position on the issue really is.
And while you’re at it, do the same with his various bits of “nuance” regarding the Patriot Act.
And while you’re at it, tell us why we are obliged to submit our need for self defense to France for their approval.
Do this Kelly, and Kerry’s the man for me. The clock is ticking Kelly.
Islamofacism? 6gun in your hand, I’d say you sound more like a 3gun.
You sir are a racist pig. Why would any of us need to bother and compare you to the Nazi’s when you have so graciously made that comparison for everyone yourself. Nice job gunny boy.
And for all you bleeding pocket book right winger fascist out there that constantly want to dis our great country and it’s great people for wanting and having a society that helps it’s own people I have a suggestion for you. Get out of this country. Go start your own country and then you can have it the way you want it because we are always going to be people who care about other people.
Power to the People.
I was counting on you to bring up the lead in the wake of Keillor’s implosion, Phoebe. Here we go again:
“You’re shooting blanks…Big tough trucker…Wanker is more like it…Get a job…I had one for years, you big baby, which is why I now have time to enjoy the fruits of my responsibly-lived life, which includes blah, blah, blah.”
I so hate stopping to your level, Jo: I just asked you to produce a legitimate, substantive reply to a very pressing issue and you come back with ad hominem condescention full of empty ego. Score: Another one for the knuckle-draggers…and we didn’t even lift a finger.
“...nutjobs like Scotty.”
Yikes. I believe I predicted this, Scott? Personally I find your remarks well-researched, factual, penetrating, fair, and unavoidable. Which is evidently why Phoebe finds them infuriating to the point of reverting to her playground nightmares. You take that, Scotty, you big mean nutjob!
“Still waiting for a link to a poll taken in the past 48 hours showing Bush 10 points ahead.”
Thanks for the after-the-fact terms, Phoebe. I HAD asked for them, I admit. Now it’s 48 hour envelopes? Anything more? Only on Tuesdays? After 6?
“I’m speaking Engish…You don’t know the meaning of moist? Look it up in the dictionary…”
Reaching deep, are we Jo? You’re a wreck. lady. You’re speaking AROUND every softball handed you and you’re proving with every subsequent post you have no chops. You prove the dysfunction of dishonesty on the Left every time you open your month.
And about telling you how to live your life? You wish. Not on my radar except, Kelly-like, to suggest you figure out what kind of governance we have over here so as to not take the rest of us down when you vote yourself pure dependency. You’re damn right I’ll raise a stink about that.
“If Kelly is as smart as I think she is… LOL.”
Appealing to the stands for support again, Phoebe? LOL’ing your way into good graces? Familiar tactics…but pointless.
Still waiting, as I’m sure Brooks and Scott are, for substance, Joanne. Come on; you can do it.
Brooks, how about just dealing with the issue that you ARE attempting, lamely, to frame - and not with any original material, I might add. Now I am reasonably convinced that you are (a) sitting at home trying to make a living through some MLM scamorama, or (b) actually David Brooks, pantywaist conservative writer for the NYT. Who, incidentally, I find rather entertaining and creative, especially when he’s making shit up to sell a book like Bobos in Paradise.
I absolutely will not waste my time sharing my thoughts on this topic with you. Not a dodge of the issue, but rather an avoidance of yet another boring discussion where you refuse to respond and simply change the subject. I will be happy to discuss ideas on this topic with any other reasonable person, right or left. That lets you, Scotty, and 6Pack off the hook.
Oh, and since y’all don’t always have a firm grip on the English language, by ‘reasonable’ I mean cogent, coherent, responsive to others…even sensitive in the finest, most Cheneyesque sense of the word.
JIMBOY! Dood! Like, peace, man, and power to the people. Surf’s up, man; pass that doober. Let’s get high and [choke] like, “dis” some Nazis!
Dig it man, totally.
Scotty boy try reading the authorization that was voted on by the congress to give bush the right to go to war and then try and “fit” how he went to war into that reading (this is where the your bs starts).
So (and try to hang with me on this on scotty boy)if you ask me if I would vote again for this I would say yes but that I would do things differently. Try and grab that, I know it will be a struggle.
Good thing you weren’t one of Pavlov’s dogs cause you would have ran into that electrical shock until you were dead man.
I like a man that can learn and change his mind and a man that can think and chew gum at the same time. What to obscure for you scotty boy?
Power to the People.
Joanne wheezed:
“you are (a) sitting at home trying to make a living through some MLM scamorama”
Phoebes, girl! GET SOME NEW MATERIAL.
(Can’t speak for Brooks, but just so you know, both my concerns earn 24 hours a day, allowing me to pop in on your rich life here in Keillor’s Lake Woe-be-on on any whim.)
Remember; keep it real and substantive. Or us autopilot nutjobs will keep bustin’ your lame excuse for debate With One Brain Tied Behind Our Back(tm).
Y’all, can we please ignore the gundunce, the beam-me-to-hell scotty, and babblingbrook? None of them deserve responses because of all the reasons above. Your civility will not be returned.
Thank you JIMBOY, Ed, and Joanne, my sentiments exactly!
There are only two things that anyone needs to know about John Kerry and Viet Nam.
(1) He volunteered and fought.
(2) He came back and helped to end that very bad war.
Any and all other discussion is just a way for the right to distract from what their president has done to our country.
Ed wrote: “No Scott,you must have misunderstood me.I said that you won’t be able to find the moles,because that’s their job.The references to the judges was just an example of what is on the surface of the cesspool not what you can’t see in the depths.”
—————
Again Ed, and for the third time, if you cannot see these moles in the depths of the “cesspool”, THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE THERE? I hate to have to use all capitals on you Ed but I don’t know how else to make my question more obvious to you. You said that there were some Bush moles “manipulating the system”. I asked you to support your assertion and you have offered none. You want to make these wild over-the-top accusations and then turn around and say “I don’t have to prove anything”. Say what!?
And exactly where IS this cesspool you speak of? Is it right next to the nonexistent oil pipeline that was, according to Michael Moore, our secret reason for going to Afghanistan?
“Your civility will not be returned”
You mean like nutjobs? Beam-me-to-hell?
Got it.
Civility-slash-denial. Civility-slash-appearances. Civility-slash-images. Civility-slash-leftwing emptiness finally, somehow, overcoming actual reality.
The Left. At ALL costs, that bastion of higher debate into the vey core of the human condition.
Slowly, slowly, slowly, his grip on reality slipping, Garrison hangs, poised to fall into some alternative, bizarro-version of Lake Woebegone where horned Republicans lurk behind every rock, ready to snatch fair-cheeked damsels and accordion players at any moment. “Over the top” doesn’t begin to describe this rather pathetically twisted vision of politics. Bombast and hate do not a good citizen make, but this seems to be what underlies Keillor’s world view and that of a very large part of his audience.
Unfortunately,I don’t agree with Garrison at all. I like Zell Miller and will believe a Demacrat for telling it like it is. If we are to have a country you have to NOT vote for Kerry. I shudder to think of him as president.
JIMBOY drops his board, defines parameters and crushes dissent:
“There are only two things that anyone needs to know about John Kerry and Viet Nam.”
Like, thank’s for handling that gnarly Cambodian tube, dude. Power to the People.
(The People, who, in the TRUE counter-culture spirit [*toke, hack*] should know what’s up with The Man’s, like, whole scene and crib and shit…)
It’s paranoia, Scott (like anybody of my limited intellectual stature could point it out between my repetitive pistol cleanings.)
LeftLogic(tm): There MUST be Bushmoles, because Bush is Hitler.
Ergo there officially ARE invisible Bushmoles. Hitler had ‘em. Right? Makes sense to me.
6gun,
I’ve enjoyed your posts and ripostes. You’ve got a fire in your belly and the facts on your side and you probably don’t need to pound the table quite so hard. Still, I know you’re just trying to break through the liberal fog to some real center. I’ll lurk for a bit to see if you find it but I expect you and I both know that there’s “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once wrote.
Joanne,
Your pillow stuffing responses may be good therapy for you but they make for a lame debate. If the left spent half its energy on real education that it now spends on artsy fartsy conspiracy theories and heart-felt-hatred, one might have some grounds for hope for your side. Absent rehab, the left will not rise to be more than a dead end refuge for tired old totalitarians looking for one last ride on the dialectic merry-go-round.
JimBoy wrote: “There are only two things that anyone needs to know about John Kerry and Viet Nam.”
Oh really? Says who? Jim, by what authority do you get to tell us what we do and do not need to know about any given issue? Did I miss some sort of swearing-in ceremony whereby you were made master arbiter of such things? I think I’ll be deciding for myself what I do and do not need to know JimBoy.
Then, JimBoy wrote: “He volunteered and fought.”
And he also lied about it, and has distastefully exploited those lies in service to his current power grab.
And lastly, JimBoy wrote: “He came back and helped to end that very bad war.”
1) What evidence do you have that John Kerry had any effect to end the Vietnam war?
2) He gave aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of propaganda.
3) He publicly smeared the American soldier, and now portrays himself as a great American soldier - hence, bringing the current Swift Boat Vets controversy on himself.
Margo,
It might be a good idea for you to go to New Zealand, where the government thinks mostly in economic terms, like you seem to. For example, economic considerations apparently take precedence when it comes to foreign relations in New Zealand. The government of New Zealand recently signed a trade agreement with Iran, a country which recently hung a 16-year-old girl for being raped and pointing out that she was a victim, and which, incidentally, exports terrorism.
I know that it is tempting to think that George W. Bush is the biggest problem in the world. He is a lot less terrifying, even in the prose and art which mocks him, that are people who convince young men that they can receive the eternal services of 72 virgins in heaven if they can only die while killing you and your family. It is so much easier to face the horror that is Bush. At least you can oppose him without being slaughtered. Anything to make you feel better about yourself.
It’s sort of like Michael Moore convincing himself that if Osama bin Laden is dangerous, it is because of his wealth and not because of his ideology. Bill Gates is REALLY the one we should be going after, right?
There really IS a cultural divide in the United States, isn’t there?
Jimboy, they did have their own country once. It was south of the Mason-Dixon line and they’re still pissed that they had to get out in the fields and chop their own cotton after the dust-up was over. Back then, they had a unremitting hatred for carpetbaggers. Now they want to be the biggest, baddest carpetbaggers the world has ever seen. It’s not about a relative handful of dangerous lunatics armed with weapons purchased on an open arms market that benefits US corporations to the tune of billions every year. [Or perhaps more dangerous items, possibly stolen while our inept president runs for office and fails utterly to make any determined much less comprehensive effort to secure such materials.] It’s about…kicking somebody’s ass, anybody’s ass in an impotent rage. That’s the deal.
So Jim, once again, thanks for your perspective. IMO you’re a real man who speaks with heart, as is Ed, as is Bernie, as is Lyle, as do so many men and women who have posted here.
You’re right, Brooks. I don’t care anymore what the Left thinks about what they wish to believe is the Right. Refusing historical perspective and lacking much personal integrity, they made up their minds and indulged their cultural fantasies decades ago. Look what it’s given us. Etch-A-Sketch screeds.
I get a morose kick out of throwing stuff back offensively enough to maybe get their attention and maybe, hopefully, cause a temporary mental course change of even a single degree. They’re not bad people, most of them, just insulated from the real world. Some even come around.
What they can’t understand is that this nasty ole Republican is a mild Independent who opposes the corporate rape of America’s tax coffers, opposes environmental havoc, and supports personal rights. I’m a old-time Constitutionalist and expect govt get out of my bedroom, pocketbook, airport, and school.
Problem is the Left, once proudly in line with those ideals, is bending over for the likes of Clinton and Kerry, and rushing not toward true democratic freedoms but toward utter dependency and sloth and the wholesale erosion of values by their growing lunatic extremists. They go around arm in arm with clowns like Moore and Keillor. It’s all about the appearance of championing some odd Power to the People and the selective use of what they’d have us believe are “living” constitutional principles.
But it’s intellectual Fascism. Crushing of dissent. Restriction of real free speech for a laundered, politically-correct, Statist group-think without substance.
I support Bush not because he’s a globalist player, which he is, but because he apparenty knows how to weild the one true tool granted the federal governments of united states by reason and our founders: The defensive war machine.
I believe we’re also in a culture war for the soul of this country. And I see no reason to abide dysfunctional postmodern leftwingers. They’re dangerous and obsolete, and the stakes are too high.
It’s sad to see how quickly Garrison’s points are brought to life by folks like “6gun” and “scott”. The Right’s reliance on the fear of and condescension for the rest of the world allows them to stir up the conservative masses with matching calls to arms and religion. “USA! USA!”, they cried at the convention, as if our nation was a team to cheer on to victory. “Get ‘em before they get us!” and “Bring it on!”, they proclaim, without so much as a passing thought as to the effect it will have on “them”. They stir and stir, bring their recipe for disaster to a boil: one part nationalistic arrogance, one part greed, one part xenophobia, one part half-baked religious ideology.
I was raised in a conservative family and was for many years a conservative myself, but at no time did I believe that God wanted me or my nation to wage war on my fellow man. Once it became clear to me that most conservatives were motivated by intolerance, fear, or greed, I realized that the Right was actually wrong. Throwing one’s weight around is the tactic of a bully and taking care of one’s fellow man (no matter who that may be) is the tactic of a saint. While those on the Right proudly proclaim that God is on their side, their actions and their words surely say the opposite.
I don’t want my America to be the nation that others most fear, I want it to be the one that they most respect. I don’t want it to be the richest nation, but the most generous and kind. I don’t want it to have the greatest number of rich people, but the fewest number of poor. Funny how those feelings parallel how I feel about my children…
This nation has been traditionally described as a melting pot, a great peaceful blending of diverse traditions and beliefs, where its citizens can enjoy the fruits of freedom and justice. Until we learn to resist being played by those who have commandeered our government with their money, we will continue to boil in the stinking stew that these fearmongers are conjuring up instead.
The “soul of this country” is not about forcing others to act as some majority within would declare to be right, or forcing other countries to operate as we do, but to preserve the ideals of freedom and equality that our forefathers spoke of. If we cannot lead by example, then we cannot lead at all.
Joanne wrote: “Jimboy, they did have their own country once. It was south of the Mason-Dixon line and they’re still pissed that they had to get out in the fields and chop their own cotton after the dust-up was over.”
—————
Joanne, you don’t chop cotton, you pick it. And it’s a very laborious process that I damn well resent having to do when in fact I ought to be able get black people to do it for me for free. And have you the slightest notion how that eats into my schedule; preventing me from attending Goosesteppers Anonymous meetings, or from killing as many innocent Jews as I’d like? Damn that Abraham Lincoln. Now that’s ONE Republican I could live without.
It appears to me that Garrison Keillor is using the same type of rhetoric that he accuses the Republicans of using. He is an angry man - angry about his side not being in power. His words are hollow and full of lies that sound like truth.
Unfortunately, what Garisson Keillor fails to see is that the Democratic Party provides no alternative for those of us who are opposed to Bush’s foreign and domestic security policies. The Democratic party has become the party of every special interest, no matter how perverted, and is hostile to our moral and cultural foundations.
For me the Democratic Party is defined by one issue now - a fanatical belief in the sacramental status of abortion. That is a defining issue and it is the only issue that loudly proclaims the difference between the two parties. The Democrats are the party of death, with little true concern for anything but petty convenience for their constituants. They have a warped sense of Liberty and Freedom that knows no boundaries to personal moral license. Keillor wraps himself in the constitution, but it is the Democratic Party that has found a way to twist the Constitution and abandon the principles of the Declaration - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - to condemn millions of unborn children to death at the hands of their mother. This “convenience trumps life” philosophy has turned our culture into a culture of death. When, and if, the Democrats stand up for all of life, including the unborn, I will begin to take them seriously on other issues. For now, all of their words ring hollow, Garisson Keillor’s included.
The Republicans are the party of life, with some semblance of restraint on the government’s power to confiscate any person’s wealth at any time and transfer it to another. Notice I said semblance of restraint. The Republicans have almost abandoned the ideals of limited and constitutional government. That is why I may not vote Republican this time, but am seriously considering the Constitution Party. It may be time to abandon the two major parties. Do either really represent us?
For Keillor to write as he has and not also condemn the Democrats, shows a petty anger. I see the same anger in all of the posts above. Everyone is just mad that their people aren’t in power. Hardly a one of the posts above show any sign that anyone is thinking, or even has the capacity to think rationally. We cheer when the other side gets a good tongue lashing without thinking about the words being spoken. Listen and analyze what Keillor is saying. He offers nothing constructive but a vicious rhetoric.
You may hate George Bush and his administration for a variety of reasons, but surely, the alternative is no better. And with the Democratic proclivity to embrace every perversion known to mankind, Bush is probably the lesser of two evils.
Sorry to repeat, but it’s worth repeating:
GAO: Ex-Medicare Chief Should Repay Salary
Tuesday September 7, 2004 8:16 PM
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The former Medicare administrator should repay his government salary because of his efforts to keep higher estimates of the cost of a prescription drug plan from Congress last year, congressional investigators said Tuesday.
The recommendation from the Government Accountability Office reignited the controversy over the passage of the Medicare overhaul and questions about whether the Bush administration intentionally concealed its own estimates of the cost - $100 billion more than the $400 billion it acknowledged - to win support from conservative Republicans.
The Associated Press reported last year that Thomas Scully, the Medicare chief until December, threatened to fire chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster to prevent him from giving the information to lawmakers.
Federal law prohibits a federal agency from paying the salary of an official who prevents another federal employee from communicating with Congress, GAO said.
Because the Department of Health and Human Services ``was prohibited from paying Mr. Scully’s salary after he barred Mr. Foster from communicating with Congress, HHS should consider such payments improper,’’ GAO general counsel Anthony Gamboa wrote in a report to Democratic senators who requested it. ``Therefore, we recommend that HHS seek to recover these payments.’’
An earlier report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also concluded that the administration was wrong to keep the information from Congress.
HHS officials and Scully, who now works for a law firm and investment bank, did not immediately provide comment Tuesday.
But the administration argued in a July report that no laws were broken. Scully ``has the final authority to determine the flow of information to Congress,’’ the HHS inspector general’s office said.
The administration has adamantly refused to release Foster’s estimates, even since the law’s enactment in December. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court. The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, received 13 pages that had previously been made public.
The administration withheld another 150 pages that HHS acknowledged are responsive to the AP’s request.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-447 79309,00.html
Another example of the current administration’s policies of secrecy and public deceit.
So hiding $100 billion discrepancy from Congress is ethically and fiscally responsible?
For clarification, the post above, beginning with “It appears to me that Garrison Keillor…” was posted by a different “Scott”.
My new “Original Scott” screen name is done tongue-in-cheek.
Again, sorry to repeat the news, but how does this administration deserve another term when they are ripping-off our own (tax-supported) army?
US army to take back Halliburton’s $13bn contract after costs dispute
David Teather in New York
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
The US army is preparing to abandon a contract with Halliburton, the company formerly run by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, which has been investigated for allegedly overcharging it.
The contract to provide housing, food and other services to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, potentially worth $13bn (£7.2bn), is expected to be broken into smaller parts and opened to competitive bids in the next few months.
The Halliburton division awarded the contract, Kellogg Brown & Root, has been fighting a rearguard action against allegations of massive overcharging for much of the past year.
Last month Pentagon auditors suggested that the army should withhold payment of 15% of Halliburton’s invoices in Iraq, saying that the company had been unable to account properly for at least $1.8bn of the $4.3bn it had so far asked for.
The army is still considering the recommendation.
In a memo of August 25, cited by the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Tina Ballard, the army’s chief procurement officer, ordered officials to “immediately begin the transition to competitively awarded sustainment contracts for support of US military forces in Iraq.”
Halliburton has been swamped by controversy since it emerged that it had been given contracts to repair oilfields and give logistical back up to the army in Iraq.
To the Democrats Halliburton has become shorthand for cronyism and special interests in the Bush administration.
The logistics work was given to the company without a competitive tender under an existing 10-year contract to provide a wide range of contingency services to US troops.
The army is expected to invite tenders for six different contracts.
It is expected that they will include food services, housing and transportation.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said the company had expected the army’s decision.
“Such a transition is anticipated,” she said, “and planned for in all our contingency operations.
“Our contingency work in the Balkans was bid out in much the same way.”
She said Halliburton would review the contracts on offer before deciding whether to make a bid.
The memo is said to address the increasing frustration of army officers at the effort to reach a final estimate for the work being carried out by KBR.
One option apparently being considered is for the army to come up with its own quote.
Halliburton has accused its critics of using it to score political points against Mr Cheney.
But the company has provided the Democrats with plenty of ammunition.
Last month it admitted finding evidence that a consortium it leads had at least discussed bribing Nigerian officials to win a contract.
And it paid $7.5m to settle a claim by the US financial watchdog that it had failed to disclose an important accounting change during Mr Cheney’s tenure which allowed it to keep meeting Wall Street’s forecasts.
Special report
United States of America
World news guide
North American media
Media
New York Times
Washington Post
CNN
Government
US government portal
White House
Senate
House of Representatives
————————————————————————————————————————-
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1299490,00.html
Here’s a gravely serious ISSUE (IMO) that should be headline news in the debate over the upcoming election.
PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC) Here’s a link that discusses it briefly for those of you who are unfamiliar with this very important agenda:
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/28571/view
I am curious of those who support the current administration, and plan to continue to do so by voting for them again in November:
1) Are you familiar with this agenda?
2) Does it reflect/represent your views and the direction you believe is in the best interest of average Americans and the rest of the world? Will you elaborate on your answer, whether in favor or oposition, please?
3) Do you feel that the currently administration is being forthright about this agenda, and that it is representative of the Republican party platform? Please elaborate?
I am also curious whether any of you have heard/read/seen any comments at all from the Kerry camp on PNAC. If so, any links or references would be appreciated.
For those of you who respond, please respond to the issue/agenda/questions asked about it. And, please refrain if you can from name calling, paritsan rhetoric or glittering generalities and speak for yourself about what YOU think about this issue/agenda and its influence on the direction of our country.
Personally, I am gravely concerned for several reasons. First, because I perceive that the vast majority of those who support the current administration and align themselves with the Republican Party have never heard of this and have no idea of the influence it has had/is having on the policies being pushed through, the direction of our country, and the far-reaching effects on our foreign policy. Second, which is closely related to the first, I believe it is further representation of the secrecy and deception being carried out under-cover, while we in-fight over whether liberals are whiners or conservatives are crooks, et al. This is a major agenda behind the actions, policies and practices of the “leaders” at the top levels of our government, and I don’t believe there was any mention of it at all at the RNC. Anyone???
You’re kidding, right?
You spew all this class-hatred, yet nominate the two richest guys who ever ran for the office of President. What’s up with that? Where’s everyman?
If “rich” people never deserve tax breaks, only increases, what happens when the taxrate gets to 100%? If they “sometimes” deserve tax breaks, what are the criteria? If it’s when there’s no debt, what stops us from implementing social programs until there’s nothing preventing the “100%” bracket?
Lincoln would applaude today’s Republican party. They’re working to free low-income people from their Democrat slavemasters.
I’m a proud Lincoln-Republican.
That’s ok Kelly,you learn to ignore 6gun after awhile.He has delusions of grandure.He comes around to scoff,cast aspersions,and generally just muddy up the water,all the while trying to convince himself and others that George Bush has a handle on the situation.Thus the rediculous statement that the U.S.is sovereign.According to the dictionary that means that the U.S.is possessed of supreme power.Can you imagine that?If we were the supreme power we would not have needed any help from no stinking coalition.We could take over the world.We would have all the minerals,all the money.Everybody would bow down to us.Oh please,what a fool.Ed P.
Ed, your stuff isn’t really worthy of a reply, but perhaps there’s still hope you’ll develop the ability to think and understand.
The US is a sovereign nation. It has a sovereign rule of law founded in an exclusive American Constitution and founding documents. Obviously, it was not originated by, nor does it bow to the UN. It does not receive policy from Europe or clearance from the rest of the Globe…which is why it can go and do things many of your kind find offensive. There is no “international law” the sovereign US needs to observe unless it chooses.
The US is a sovereign nation. This takes guts and clarity of purpose to appreciate, Ed. Put your dictionary aside…unless it includes “sovereign” in the context of this very real, very important point of fact.
An aside to the other like-minded name-callers: Is it actually possible your dumbed-down grasp of your fundamental responsibilities within this special experiment in freedom we call a nation of united states is so limited that you cannot grasp this? I didn’t think it was possible to underestimate you, but apparently I was wrong.
If so, why do you vote, except to destroy that most precious gift you can neither appreciate nor understand, much less acknowledge is so valued by others willing to make the daily (or ultimate) sacrifice in order to remain free?
Maybe you can see why those of us with a grasp of this delicate balance become outraged at your idiocy. Or, because of that same idiocy, maybe not.
Hi Kim.
To answer your questions:
1) Yes.
2) Yes. The barbarians are at the gate - crashing passenger jets into skyscrapers (3000 dead Americans, thousands wounded and maimed for life, thousands more missing their wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters, and sons, and children are being targeted and slaughtered in previously unimaginable ways (as in Beslan), etc. and so forth. As I write this, thousands of Islamists seek various biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in an effort to destroy this country - settling for one of two things: that we throw out the Constitution and replace it with the Koran, or that we all die. Meanwhile, a limp-wristed Europe insists on self-righteous appeasment, altogether unaware that anything short of unconditional surrender will suffice.
3) The current administration outlined its agenda very clearly at last week’s convention.
Hi Kim. I lifted this from the PNAC website. PNAC doesn’t scare me. Kerry/Edwards do.
——-
“In an interview with the Washington Post published [Tuesday], Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards promised that a Kerry administration would offer a “grand bargain” to the totalitarian theocracy in Iran. This “grand bargain” would allow the Islamic state to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for a promise to give up the kind of nuclear fuel used to make bombs.
This is a dangerous proposal and should receive close scrutiny.
First, the Kerry team has apparently learned nothing from the disastrous deal the Clinton administration made with North Korea back in the 1990s. Edwards’s proposal for a “grand bargain” with Iran is almost identical to the Clinton administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework deal. In that earlier “bargain,” North Korea promised to halt work on nuclear weapons in return for American assistance with “peaceful” nuclear programs. We now know that the North Korean government lied all along and used the agreement to proceed with its nuclear weapons programs.
But the Kerry team is undeterred by this record of failure. In fact, Edwards’s proposal is of a piece with Kerry’s generally soft approach to dangerous regimes like the one in Teheran. Back in March, Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations that he wanted to carry out a “non-confrontational” policy toward Iran that emphasizes areas of “mutual interest.”
Being “non-confrontational” with Iran apparently means not raising troubling matters, such as Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism. In outlining his proposed “grand bargain” with the Iranian government, Edwards completely ignored the fact that a number of senior ranking al Qaeda officials now live and operate in Iran under the Iranian government’s protection. Richard Clarke has stated that he regards the connection between Iran and al Qaeda as very dangerous. Yet John Edwards does not insist that his “grand bargain” must include a promise by Iran to cut off all ties with al Qaeda and to turn over those al Qaeda operatives on Iranian soil. Undoubtedly, this is all part of Kerry’s and Edwards’s strategy for waging a “more sensitive” war on global terrorism.
Kerry and Edwards believe the failed policies of the 1990s remain suitable to the post-September 11 era. We doubt a majority of Americans will agree.”
——-
Why is it that so few of the people around me can see this? I agree with everything you say, but there are so many blind Americans who believe the most blatant of Bush’s lies. When I tell them of Norquist’s quote and how Bush is selling out our government’s social programs by bankrupting the country, they think I’m exaggerating the issue. They call me a liberal, or they suggest that I’m reading too much propaganda. Bush’s true agenda is so difficult for anyone to believe, that they choose to only believe what they think they see - a decisive man doing what he must to protect us. I try to explain that decisive does not mean right, but that is difficult to get through to people these days. Too many people have been kept too scared too long and choose to remain ignorant about the truth. I just hope there’s enough thoughtful people out there to vote this joker out of office.
In response to Brooks:
M. Bierbaum,
“The beautiful thing about our system of government is I don’t have to care about your moral definitions. And I don’t. Between us, legal authority is all that matters and you have completely misconstrued constitutional and
legal authority in order to score your zingers. I blame your teachers.”
As a matter of fact my teachers would be very proud of me.
How eloquently you argue my very point. The separation of church and state is about the difference between moral definitions and legal authority. This administration claims to be guided by its Conservative Christian principles and it continues to show by its actions that it is in direct conflict with those Conservative Christian Principles.
By the way, the legal authority of this nation is based upon the Constitution. Should I score one more zinger here?
Jean,I feel exactly the same as you….......but about 180degrees the other direction.I to shudder to think what will become of this country if we can survive another four years of the Bush campaign to be King of the sovereign United States of America.Ed P.
Why is it that so few of the people around me can see this? asks Lydia.
(Wow, talk about an opening.) Maybe it’s because, like any unique reality, only YOU see it, dear.
So Ed, if Bush wants to be King (another unique point of view has Ed) how exactly do you know this?
Would it be his downsizing taxation? Considering abolishing the presumption-of-guilt IRS juggernaut? Or is it those pesky empowerments of private-sector groups of [GASP!] actual US citizens?!
Yep, sounds all King-like to me, Ed.
Still tied up in defining “sovereign”? Sorry, I can only lead a horticulture once…
Lydia wrote: “Why is it that so few of the people around me can see this?”
Because Lydia, unlike you, we’re stupid.
—————
Lydia wrote: “there are so many blind Americans who believe the most blatant of Bush’s lies.”
Which lies would those be Lydia? (Please confine your answer to the dictionary definition of the word “lie”.)
—————
Lydia wrote: “Bush is selling out our government’s social programs by bankrupting the country, they think I’m exaggerating the issue.”
No Lydia, you have it backwards. Social programs are bankrupting our country. There is a reason that pyramid schemes are illegal. Nevertheless, our government is running a mammoth pyramid scheme euphemistically known as “Social Security”. We’re not even supposed to HAVE social programs in the first place, unless you can point out for me which part of the constitution states that some people are entitled to the earnings of others.
—————
Lydia wrote: “Bush’s true agenda is so difficult for anyone to believe.”
Lydia, what IS Bush’s true agenda? And, how did you come to know of this secret agenda?
—————
Lydia wrote: “they choose to only believe what they think they see - a decisive man doing what he must to protect us. I try to explain that decisive does not mean right, but that is difficult to get through to people these days.”
That’s a strawman Lydia. Whoever said that decisive means right? What I can say with certainty however is that indecisiveness is the sign of a poor leader - even if you want to blame it on his “nuance”.
—————
Lydia wrote: “Too many people have been kept too scared too long and choose to remain ignorant about the truth.”
Scared Lydia? The entire liberal agenda is based on fear, and so are the means used to acquire liberal power. And again, what are you talking about when you speak of “truth”? When did truth become a concern for the liberal agenda? Whenever liberals start talking about “truth”, I hide my wallet and call my tax attorney.
—————
Lydia wrote: “I just hope there’s enough thoughtful people out there to vote this joker out of office.”
Thoughtful people? You mean, thoughtful like you, Lydia? I’m not sure we have that many “thoughtful” people. The joker stays.
Kim, and OScott for that matter, if you don’t feel you need your news filtered through PNAC, you can go to the original article in the WaPo. You’ll see the obvious spin PNAC is putting on the interview, and you may still agree with the PNAC perspective, but it is only one interpretation after all. There will be more information available on this matter in a few days, and generally the Kerry website publishes all of his policy statements, so you can look there to eliminate the filter of the journalists writing about the topic.
“As a matter of fact my teachers would be very proud of me.”
Well, see, that’s the problem with Statist education, Mike. Like Kerry, they’re French- sorry; I mean, Socialist to the core…
“The separation of church and state is about the difference between moral definitions and legal authority.”
Wrong, Mike. Among other things, the separation of church and state is about the moral definitions OF the legal authority as it fully applies to freedom OF religious expression.
In other words, without a moral base, none of our laws, rights, or presumptions and expectations of freedom—primarily including the essential freedom to practice a moral religion with which to influence government to be just—would even exist.
Therefore, moral underpinnings precede freedom precede religious expression…in Churches.
Didja know the entire fledgling American country was overrun by churches, Mike? That every dang Founder and just about every citizen came here to preserve religious freedom and expression, not build an agnostic Statist utopia?
Ed wrote: “Thus the rediculous statement that the U.S.is sovereign.According to the dictionary that means that the U.S.is possessed of supreme power.”
——-
Now Ed, I think you know very well that’s not what 6Gun meant. Your desperation to score a point is hanging out like a cheap hooker.
Pop quiz:
Separation of Church and State is a Constitutional guarantee. Yes? No?
“Separation of Church and State” appears in the founding documents?
“Separation of Church and State” appears in postmodern Liberal dogma?
Government officials must be Agnostics?
US law is (was?) built on moral code?
Ending religious expression on tax-paid public property is enforcing freedom of speech?
Bonus points:
Separation of Church and State is designed to protect (a) the Church, or (b) the State?
Joanne wrote: “Kim, and OScott for that matter, if you don’t feel you need your news filtered through PNAC, you can go to the original article in the WaPo. You’ll see the obvious spin PNAC is putting on the interview, and you may still agree with the PNAC perspective, but it is only one interpretation after all. There will be more information available on this matter in a few days, and generally the Kerry website publishes all of his policy statements, so you can look there to eliminate the filter of the journalists writing about the topic.”
—————
Joanne, what do I do if I don’t want my news “filtered” through The Washington Post, or the Kerry camp for that matter? And where in the world did you get the notion that I have but one source for my news and/or analysis? You know, I don’t spend ALL my time killing innocent Jews or enslaving black people to pick my cotton.
But yes, I too noticed the “spin”. It occurred precisely where they offered up (gulp, gasp) legitimate and well-founded criticism of Edwards’ Carter-esque proposal. And yes, I’m quite sure that the Kerry camp is busy framing this in a way as to make it sound as if Edwards is not completely clueless on the matter. They’ve quite the task ahead of them.
Try not to let your LRM (Loin-response Mechanism) influence your opinion of John Edwards. Though he may moisten the soil of your middle-earth, he could also get us all killed.
Garrison Keillor, you are truly a fatuous and self-absorbed idiot of gargantuan proportions. What a waste.
Following is a link to a website hosted by the Family Steering Committee, family members of those killed in the attacks on 9/11/01:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/
“The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The FSC is not affiliated with any other group, nor does it receive financial or other support from any organization or individual.”
This is (btw) ONE of many movements underway, including class action lawsuits, on behalf of the families who lost loved ones on that tragic day, charging our nations “leaders” at that time with accountability for the events of 9/11.
This site has a very comprehensive overview of these families’ experiences attempting to get answers and accountability from our gov’t., and more specifically from the officials charged with protecting our country on that fateful day.
They, like many of us in this country, believe that “We the People” have a right to know the answers to many obvious, relevant, and still unanswered questions about the events before, on and after 9/11/01. A list of their questions can be found at:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
As I have said, I am not at all interested in partisan politricks and neither refute nor endorse any candidate based on their political party (or their propaganda). I believe, as (understandably)these families do, that we deserve answers to these, and IMO, many other questions around the anomolies that allowed such an event to occur, from those in positions of “responsibility”.
It bewilders me, and anyone I’ve ever met and had discussions on this issue- who are not evangelistically entrenched in partisan politics, how an administration on whose watch the most massive “failure” of National Defense and overall “Intelligence” in our nation’s history took place- has managed not only to avoid any accountability for the tragic events of that day, but to spin that event into a factor in their favor (????)
If our “leaders”, our “Commander-in-Chief” and heads of every other department related to “Intelligence” or “Defense” are not required to give a detailed, no-holds-barred, under-oath-account of their actions, inactions, policies, practices or anything else “We the People” care to ask of them regarding the “performance” of their duties, who the hell IS?
If this is not a central issue in the discussion of the direction of our nation, and this upcoming election- what the hell IS?
If those charged with “accountability” are allowed to hand-pick the panels who will require that accountability, and allowed to define the parameters of the inquiry, exactly WHAT IS the definition of “Justice” for all???
As I have also stated, I am no fan of JK and am dismally depressed over the lack of viable alternatives in the upcoming election. So, please don’t respond with partisan rhetoric about my presumed political agenda. I’ll make it easy and “out” my agenda: I believe that there is much to be learned from- and much more to be uncovered about- a tragedy that unquestionably has been the catalyst for collosal change in our nation. I believe that not only should those at the helm the day of that massive disaster NOT EVEN be considered for “re-election” before the questions posed by the famiies (and many others) are answered, but that those “leaders” (whether they be Dems’/Repubs or Martians for God’s sake…should willingly, without anything to hide, testify under-oath regarding every aspect of those events,AND their accountability for such. This has NOT been the case, to say the very least.
My question for those who support those individuals charged with ensuring our nation’s security on that day, and their potential re-election…
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? ARE YOU THINKING? Are you aware of the measures that have been taken by those individuals to ensure that no light is ever shown on the details of that disaster? How is it that you believe that those individuals deserve promotions, budget increases, absolution and potential re-election? Please, without partisan positioning, can you help me and others who share this same bewilderment understand your rationalization?
Joanne, Not sure, but I think you may have interpreted that I’m not aware of, or worse, supportive of the PNAC. To clarify, I am chillingly aware of the agenda, from a variety of different perspectives.
I have not been able to find any specific reference or statement of position on the PNAC from the Kerry camp. Do you have any links or recall any references he’s made to this agenda?
Scott, Thanks for your response and I appreciate your forthrightness in your support of the PNAC agenda. However, If you will revisit my post, you’ll see that my concerns/questions, which you didn’t answer are that the Republican Party is not being as forthright as you in representing the PNAC as a cornerstone of its platform, and that nearly NONE of the Republicans (or Bush supporters) I’ve asked have ever heard of this agenda. If they did in fact mention it at the RNC, can you tell me WHO cited it (by NAME) and which of its tenets were laid out in detail? If it was, I haven’t heard the mainstream media mention a word of it, and, as I said, I’ve yet to find hardly a single Bush supporter who’s ever heard of it. You were a rare exception.
Why is this very integral component of the current administration’s agenda not as talk-a-day a topic as the “New Deal” or “Leave no child behind” or any of the many programs which were integrally involved in defining and promoting a party’s platform in the past? Why has this agenda not been discussed in public discourse in relationship to its seeming coincidences in national/world events and the agenda of the current administration?
In response to 6Gun:
“This hoary phrase doesn’t even appear in the Constitution, and had absolutely no place in the forming of the American Republic.”
Shall I direct you to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Seems to me that is pretty clear concerning the separation of church and state. Seems to me also that the folks who came here in the first place were pretty fed up with the state religion infringing on their free exercise of their religion. I guess I missed that part in my history courses in college.
“Rather, the Framers saw to it (as best they could, not envisioning post-modern, images-based Leftist culture of today) that freedom OF religion would be the basis of a moral society, a moral society, in their words, being essential to literal cultural and national survival.”
The framers of the Constitution were mostly Christians to be sure, however, it was pretty clear that they didn’t limit religious freedom to just Christianity. An atheist friend of mine once said, “Why do people assume that because I am an atheist that I have no moral code? I have a very strong moral sense and I hold to it firmly.” This man is kinder, more honest, loyal and trustworthy than many self proclaimed Christians that I know. So don’t assume a lack of morality if there is an apparent lack of religion.
“Government was never intended to be free from…the freedom of speech and religious expression! Your statement casts trendy aspersions but contains neither logic or
reality.”
I have an example, I am a Roman Catholic… (surprised?) I am also a musician (oops, damned myself to the hell of irrelevance). As a musician I often worked in other denominations and often heard prayers, sermons and hymns that were in opposition to Catholicism. Had I heard such coming from a publicly funded forum I would have been outraged. I would have been further outraged to know that my tax dollars were being spent to insult my religion, at worst, and at best that I was being forced to support a religion that was against mine. Is it not therefore logical to assume that it is at best insensitive and at worst insulting to expect a non-Christian to be required to participate in Christian prayer or have their tax dollars go to support a display of Christian symbols? Or a Christian to likewise support a pagan dislpay?
“How is it that it seem logical for the Left to holler about freedom from religion and freedom of free speech when it is their own revisionism that
PREVENTS freedom of speech not sanctioned by the State’s religion (of secular humanistic speech and thought control) on tax-paid property?!”
Is it not a mindblower to the Left that one simply may not express the slightest non-sanctioned thought on federal property?”
You mentioned something about casting “trendy aspersions” and containing neither “logic or reality.” How does it preclude the personal expression of religion through personal prayer or mode of dress, in any public place? When I was a teacher and passed out the test papers I saw a lot of kids in my room stop and say a prayer. When I went into the lunch room I saw a lot of kids say grace before eating, I said grace myself. What I didn’t see was a “prayer cop” come out and stop them and arrest them for praying on public property. My daughter is a Wiccan and believes in a goddess. Her choice, not my choice but this government does not have the right to force her to recognize or support another form of religion.
“Fence sitters of the kind who foolishly believe freedom from religion (and ethics and
philosophies and morality) constitutes the basis to steer the ship of State are simply incorrect an will, in the (postmodern) end, add to the oppression of the very rights they sanctimonously think they preach today.”
Well, I for one am no fence sitter. I know which side of the fence I sit on.
Be assured that Freedom OF Religion, no matter if that religion is based on Western Judeo-Christianity, Eastern Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism, or Shintoism, Islam, Neo-Paganism, or even atheism, does NOT constitute an absence of ethics, philosophies nor morality. Why do you make the assumption that it would be otherwise? Are you inferring that any other religious tradition, ethics system, philosophy or morality than your own is somehow devoid of ethics and morality?
Sure, Kim.
Politics aside, US government is a terribly irresponsible, unaccountable entity and must be distrusted. So far, a concept dear to the hearts of true Democrats and true Republicans, but obviously not to the vast centrist masses voting themselves graft without accountability.
Any rational person with any grasp of human nature and history knows that we’re not forever vigilant, it’s at our own peril.
From there, we ask if there is reason—evidence, cause, motive, proximity, means, etc.—to believe that, say, the Bush Admin caused 9/11. Or had any advance warning they didn’t share. Or is profiting from the war.
Likewise, we ask if there is similar evidence if the Islamofascists who have sworn to undo us are actively working…to undo us. Again we take a look at evidence, cause, motive, proximity, means, and etc.
I don’t know about you but while I seriously believe (by the evidence) that my government is a vile, power-mad, fire-belching monster whose primary intent is domestic and foreign control, at least to some significant degree, those lunatics on the planet outside of the US constitute a larger and more imminent danger.
So…crushing the KNOWN psychopathic murders is Job One, and returning government back to the people is Job Two.
I’m with you on the threat presented by big (Socialist, dependence-causing, and very occasionally globe-straddling) US government, I see little evidence of Pax America in any of the rebuilding efforts following any of the big wars over the last 100 years, nor do I see any credible evidence of corruption in the Bush Administration post 9/11. Remember that your post containsa none either; just complaints that the opportunity to see if any exist are being shunted.
And this lack of evidence persists despite literally millions of foreign and domestic individuals intent only on this single goal. Discrediting Bush on the international pire would make perhaps 2/3 of the planet happy. Why? They can’t face their fear that dealing preemptively beats capitulation. Look around: Weakminded international (and domestic) politicians expose their profound weakness when that ADMIT they fear NOT giving into these terrorists so as to TRY and appease them. They don’t even bother concealing this sedition and simpering cowardice.
You should thank Bush for having the courage to understand and act upon this fundamental fact.
So is it still reasonable to think Bush is an anarchistic meglomaniac? (Especially while ritually accusing him of the sin of Christian values, which are anything but anarchistic or meglomaniacal?)
Do you think these millions couldn’t have outed a credible case against him by now if they had one?
Meanwhile, in plain view, just this week, and without pity, apology, stealth, or any other motive than pure evil, Islamofascist terrorists took the lives of hundreds of innocent schoolchildren.
Think like a detective, Kim. Or an attorney. Look for cause, effect, motive, evidence. Ask basic questions. Come to basic, rational conclusions.
It’s not the wretched Right that has “partisan positioning” blinding it’s thinking (in this issue,) it’s the Left. You wonder why we think the Left is so impossibly blinded by it’s biased rage that it’s certifiably nuts? It’s stuff like this.
Spoken as only he can speak…
The nation has been hijacked by a small group of radical christian elitist thugs. Through the manipulation of the election by the conservative supreme court in 2000, they have siezed control of our government. They rule by fear and secrecy, and fortify their position by inches each day. I am afraid that another 4 years of this madness will destroy the country.
Burn the Bush!
Kim - try this site for more perspective on PNAC:
http://pnac.info/
Hi Kim. I think I only just answered the questions that you had numbered. I thought those were the official ones, so to speak.
I’m not sure why you think that the PNAC agenda is the Republican agenda per se. Though some bits of the two overlap, I don’t think one can take that to mean that they are one and the same. All that PNAC is is a conservative think tank. Washington’s got one some sort of think tank on just about every corner.
Also, the way that things have to be digested by the public these days, in pithy summation, you couldn’t really expect Bush to get up there and say “Our agenda is the PNAC agenda. Look it up”.
Anyway, it’s not like PNAC is a scary group of conspirators trying to take over the world. They just want to protect this country.
If you write back Kim, I don’t know if I’ll be able to reply right away, in that I have to be leaving the house in about 10 minutes.
See ya.
Addition to:
“This essay of Garrison Keillor’s needs to be read by every American. How can it be published so that no one will miss it? It is being passed around
on the internet but most older folks and lots of busy working people don’t “surf the web.”
I’d like to see it published on a full page in every newpaper.
Greer Nolan”
And perhaps while not entirely germaine to this debate but commentary on the general state of our country: In addition to Mr. Keillor’s essay perhaps Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol” should be required reading for business ethics courses. Even the miserly Scrooge paid Cratchit his day’s wages for the Christmas holiday, yet how many of our minimum wage and hourly workers today are out a day’s wages when the business is closed?
I guess the basic question is which is more important, the profit or the person?
Sorry to diverge.
Kim when some one says it was actually 25 or 28 hundred,not that that is an insignificant number.Also,when some one says americans,it should be remembered that a large number of the people in the twin towers were from africa,asia,and european countrys too.Ed P.
God told me 6pak,that George wanted to be king.
Scott and 6 Gun:
I want to thank you for your responses and for not lobbing presumed labels at me, rather than answering the questions I’ve posed. I am sincerely interested in understanding the answers to questions that seem paramount to me from those who support the re-election of the current administration.
I still don’t feel that either of you, or any other Bush Admin. supporters I’ve asked these questions will ever answer my questions directly.
I admit, my posts were long, so let me break it down to my fundamental questions:
1)Do you, or anyone else who favor re-election of our current leadership believe that the questions posed by the families of the 9/11 victims are relevant and should require under-oath answers from those who were at the helm that day? And if not, WHY NOT? If you haven’t read them, they are very basic, obvious and highly relevant questions that anyone with common sense, let alone anyone who lost a loved one, have been asking.
2) Regarding PNAC, why has the current administration not been forthright in referencing this agenda as a major plank in their political agenda? Scott, again I ask if you can tell me who at the RNC mentioned it (by NAME) and what was said about it and its obvious impact on the policies of this administration. Do you believe that it is not a relevant factor that the voters should be aware of?
These questions are not just for Scott or 6Gun, although I find it interesting that they are the only ones who’ve responded. Please, anyone who supports the current admin. or their re-election, shed some light.
Let’s not goof around, Mike.
“Shall I direct you to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Seems to me that is pretty clear concerning the separation of church and state.”
You know quite well I don’t claim the 1st Amendment doesn’t exist nor should you conclude from anything I’ve said that I think the State has authority to establish a religion (even though, in my opinion it has, but that’s another subject.)
What I said, as you know, is that freedom FROM religion canard is not part of the 1st…and it is decidedly not, if you care to inspect it with that in mind. We’ve been over this.
“Seems to me also that the folks who came here in the first place were pretty fed up with the state religion infringing on their free exercise of their religion. I guess I missed that part in my history courses in college.”
What’s your point, Mike? Can you point me to any of us who have contested that fact?
“The framers of the Constitution were mostly Christians to be sure, however, it was pretty clear that they didn’t limit religious freedom to just Christianity. An atheist friend of mine once said, “Why do people assume that because I am an atheist that I have no moral code? I have a very strong moral sense and I hold to it firmly.” This man is kinder, more honest, loyal and trustworthy than many self proclaimed Christians that I know. So don’t assume a lack of morality if there is an apparent lack of religion.”
Again, get it straight: Nobody is suggesting that Christianity was a State-supported exclusive religion…although it was overwhelmingly prevalent in one form or another 200 years ago. Nobody is suggesting that atheists have no moral code, just that Christians have a visible historical moral code, one based on absolute surrender to an Absolute Higher Power, which tends to make their religion of a rather higher quality, even absolute. And nobody is sggesting the two or the hundred cannot live under equal protections in this country, provided they do not violate a law built primarly on one of them.
“I am a Roman Catholic…Is it not therefore logical to assume that it is at best insensitive and at worst insulting to expect a non-Christian to be required to participate in Christian prayer or have their tax dollars go to support a display of Christian symbols? Or a Christian to likewise support a pagan dislpay?”
No, Mike, and once again nobody is suggesting as much! In fact, even Christians have squandered their faith and cowtow to removing any shred of Christian imagery from any tax-paid property. Yet meanwhile we’re all a little soft when we see, hear, or feel any OTHER religion being expressed, no matter the location.
Why? Politically-correct diversity. The new religion of the land.
“How does [government] preclude the personal expression of religion through personal prayer or mode of dress, in any public place?”
Just how much religious expression do you see consistently in public places? Your story is heartening but do you recall them ripping the commandments from the courtroom? Do you recall a constant stream of anti-Christian litigants doing whatever they can to strip any mention—from the Bible to the Pledge—from Statist schools and government buildings?
I don’t disagree that personal religious images and practices MAY disrupt domestic government life, but then I naturally find that it’s the nature of that government life that’s intrusive to religion, and not the other way around. Solution? End government involvement in the private sector’s concerns to the very limit possible at least as much as we now expect the Church to retreat from its values influencing the State. It’s a question of pendulums swinging and picking your poison.
“Be assured that Freedom OF Religion, no matter if that religion is based on Western Judeo-Christianity, Eastern Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism, or Shintoism, Islam, Neo-Paganism, or even atheism, does NOT constitute an absence of ethics, philosophies nor morality. Why do you make the assumption that it would be otherwise?”
I’d have to dissect that question to deal with ethics, philosophies, and morality individually, but generally speaking, why do you make the assumption that I assume as much? I believe there are greatly superior and greatly lessor philosophies that influence equally greater and lesser religions, but I do not make a blanket assumption, with the exception of killer religions and psychopaths, that basic morality is found exclusively in one mindset but utterly not in others.
“Are you inferring that any other religious tradition, ethics system, philosophy or morality than your own is somehow devoid of ethics and morality?”
Not as you present the question, Mike. But there are utterly, impossibly, wrong people, systems, governments, and cultures in this world. Do you agree, or are all behaviors equivalent?
More specifically, for a variety of reasons I personally believe pure Christianity is the ony absolute truth. But not that you have to agree with me, of course.
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?
I am shocked the Keillor is so full of venom that he could characterize all Republicans as he has here This piece is nothing but a diatribe. If we didn’t know it was K., we would think it was the ravings of the lunatic fringe. Eight full years of Clinton,and he wants to blame all the bad stuff on Bush’s four years. Yeah, I agree with Ancona, I don’t know how helpful the tone is here. If he’s so brave, why doesn’t try to sell this hate-filled message on his radio show, instead of the safe little forum he has here?
Michael Bierbaum responded:
<snip>
The separation of church and state is about the difference between moral definitions and legal authority.
<snip>
Brooks replies:
Mike, If the state is favoring religion generally, or one religion specifically over other religions, you have an Establishment Clause issue. If the primary purpose of the state action is secular, and the primary effect of the state action is secular, and the state action does not involve an “undue entanglement” between government and religion and vice versa, then the state action will be upheld. This is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test.
If the state is hindering a religious expression, it’s a Free Exercise Clause issue. Where the law is an intentional interference with a bona fide religious practice it will generally be a violation of the Free Exercise clause and the law will be struck down. But there are gray areas. If the particular religious expression involves criminal behavior, then the law will be upheld. If the government has a compelling governmental interest in the law, it will be upheld. If the law is neutral on its face and without intent to burden any specific religion it will generally be upheld.
Beyond the aforementioned considerations, the state does not look at the moral content of the religion. With respect to the nature of the religious expression itself, the only question explored is whether the adherent practices the religion in good faith.
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.
In conclusion, your concerns about the personal religious sentiments of elected officials are of no real consequence. As state actors they are subject to well-defined parameters insofar as what they can do to promote or inhibit religion in the country. I don’t see any evidence on the part of the current administration that they have been testing the limits of the established legal relationships between “church and state” in America.
More 6Gun:
“It’s a documented fact that Bill Clinton mentioned Christ MORE often than the hated fundamentalist from Texas.”
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.
“Ah yes, the ubiquitous Leftwing double standard, part and parcel for a political movement based not in rational thought and principle but on the
mere illusion of a feel-good, politically-correct reality that literally costs innocent lives.”
Hmmm, either we are Nihilists bent on the irrational destruction of everything or we are Humanists based in 18th Century Rationalism of logical thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, John Locke, James Madison, Tom Paine, Voltaire, and George Washington. You seem to have referred to us as both. Can’t have it both ways. And as far as politcal realities that literally cost innocent lives there’s very little that compares with a smart bomb gone astray.
You go, Kim! Sorry I misunderstood your original post - didn’t realize til I read down to your next one that you are apparently well versed in the PNAC.
I’m intrigued by OScott’s soothing and solicitous tone with you, as if PNAC is just another think tank. Of course, that’s nonsense as the guiding lights of that hot tub have regular access to the executive branch and have been tapped for key advisory positions. Richard Perle, currently on location in the South of France (!), comes to mind. Fascinating that he would flee to France, of all places, when his shady business dealings come to light.
And thank you very much for bringing up the latest news on the activities of the 9/11 families. I have not visited that site for awhile, though I have read the list of questions.
How about it all you Bush supporters? I’ll be checking back to see if anyone can/will attempt to answer Kim’s very lucid and pertinent questions.
And Kim, perhaps the reason you can’t find a PNAC/Kerry connection is that there isn’t one. The think tanks tend to be partisan, though that isn’t always the case. In any event, OScott seems pretty well versed in PNAC, and maybe he can tell us if Kerry is involved.
Nice try, collectivist, totalitarian Stalin-lovers.
Private HWC* Bernie Ellis, reporting back for duty.
Boy, have I ever missed a serious spitball duel and shit storm on this thread in the past 20 hours (when I posted last). I downloaded all the messages to a WP file and it’s 67 pages long!! Holy cow! But I must say that the dancin’ duo of Original Sin and Pop(off)Gun are really going strong. Tell me, Scott, ya’ll’s crack-like “energy” must really be eating into the profits. And I see from your post above that you’re finally using analogies (“cheap hookers”) where your profession gives you a “heads up” on the rest of us in terms of expertise. If it were me, I wouldn’t talk about my sisters that way, but then I’m not a Repub-liban. But seriously, folks….
First my thanks to Joanne, Ed P., Lyle, Anna, Daydreamer, Michael B. and the many, many others who have continued to fight the good fight. As far as ammunition, they definitely start with a bigger pile of shit than we have. But your laser-like clarity (and your fruitless attempts at civility) continue to make their hateful warfare and sludge-filled slings no match for our side. (What is it that 2004 Kerry supporters say—“right makes might”?)
For me, it has been helpful to just drive and think about our Internet skirmishes over the past ten days and to try to draw some lessons from it, both in terms of the form and the content. I will comment more on that later—I have a second phone interview coming in shortly from the MoveOn folks that will interrupt this post now.
Speaking of which, Joanne, how far is Menasha from Milwaukee? That’s where it looks like 500+ of us will be training next week before going into the battleground states to work. (BTW, Repub-libans, it looks like we’re adding several Southern states to the list of battleground states. So the South is rising again, but for all the right (or is that left?) reasons.) Would love to meet you and yours while I’m up there. Send me a note at home.
Here’s three quick (and relevant) comments from the road, before I find out about my ultimate field assignment:
1) Last night, driving over Monteagle Mountain toward Chattanooga in the rain, I turned on “The Savage Nation” (talk about truth in advertising!), one of the right wing hate shout-out programs on AM radio. Two notable things about that program last night. The first was the suggestion by the host that the solution to the Iraq problems was to “nuke ‘em”. Tell me, Original Sin and Firing Blanks, does Mr. Savage speak for all of you “might makes right” folks with that tactical suggestion? But the second thing I heard was even more amazing and certainly more important: One of the callers to the program—who identified himself as the father of a serviceman in Iraq—said he would be voting for Kerry this November as a protest against Bush’s Iraq policies. I couldn’t believe I was hearing straight (the call screener must be one of Scott’s good customers), but I was. Let me tell you, folks, we’ll take the votes anyway we can get them AND we’ll count them all too.
2) While in Atlanta, I met a Presbyterian minister who’ll also be donating her fall to be a field organizer on our righteous battlefield. She shared with me a bumper sticker they have printed up and distributed in northeast Georgia which reads: “Conservative Christians for Kerry”. Talk about people who walk their talk (and their convictions). When even the walls you Repubs have tried to build around conservatice Christians are beginning to crumble, it might be time to start checking on one-way tickets to Argentina.
3) All the way back from Atlanta (which, by the way can keep its congestion to itself—it took me 90 minutes to go the last 23 miles this morning in their morning rush hour. Ugh!), I honked and gave a “thumbs up” to every car I saw with a Kerry bumper sticker on it. Let me tell you, those anonymous shared moments of commitment to a common cause with several hundred people on the way home made the trip back a whole lot more pleasant.
Tomorrow, after I get some sleep, I want to do a quick content analysis on the 67 pages that have appeared in the last 20 hours—might as well show that my graduate training was worth something. I’m real curious to quantify just how much space Original Sinner and Firing Blanks have been taking up on this thread in the last day and what the positions of new posters have been on the race to re-unelect Duh-bya. I’ll share that tomorrow.
To end the night, how about a few facts: (I can just hear the neo-con-derthals shouting—though they surely must be hoarse by now—“Facts, facts. We don’t need no steenkin’ facts!!”)
1) $422 billion—the largest deficit in US history
2) 2,700—the number of violent encounters our soldiers had with Iraqi insurgents in August alone
3) 1,000+ dead and 7,000+ wounded so far—no trivial matter to those of us who really care about our military (and worth some more prayers from all of us who pray on their behalf tonight)
4) Decisions by the DOD to open up for re-bidding Halliburton’s “no bid” contract arranged by ole “Only we can keep you free and safe from further terrorist attacks” Cheney. (And to think I thought he didn’t have any balls. You need ‘em to carry around those sort of UnAmerican chutzpah.)
5) A decision by GAO to ask Duh-bya’s Medicare chief to refund his salary
6) Revelations that Duh-bya’s lapses in Alabama (missing mandatory National Guard training sessions and his “readiness” physical in 1972) would have made him ineligible to go to Vietnam, had his unit been called up then. (Wonder if we can get ole G-Dub to refund the money, with interest, that the “welfare state” invested in teaching him to fly back then?)
7) Bush’s lead still less than 2 points in the polls I’ve been tracking
Last point: I hope lots of you NPR liberals (and you other independent thinking folks who don’t suffer labels—or Know Nothing critics of non-sanctified news—gladly either) got a chance to hear this evening’s “Fresh Air” with Terri Gross. She interviewed the author of the new book, “Bush’s Brain”. It’s about time we turned President Rove’s tactics back around at him. After all, two can play at this game. And the more shit you folks keep slinging in our direction, the higher the vantage point you’re building for us to return the favor.
Why can’t we all just get along? Well, based on this thread, mainly we can’t all just get along because we can always tell the right-wing True Believers. Unfortunately, we just can’t tell them much. They’re the ones who never learned their manners from their mommas and who haven’t figured out that God gave them one mouth and two ears for a reason.
Good to be sleeping in my own bed tonight, and back behind friendly lines with the teachers, old soldiers, farmers, students, factory workers, successful small business folks, retirees, Southern Republicans and daydreamers on this side of the culture wars. Is it just me, or are the crack-glazed eyes of our enemies presaging a major crash and burn? Keep hope alive—work for Kerry and Edwards!! Ni-tall.
(* HWC—Hard-Working Class)
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.
Voter fraud and gerrymandering are rife in both parties. No argument there. My points were that Bush did not have a clear popular mandate no matter how you count the popular vote but that doesn’t matter since it is the Electoral College that elects the President and Vice President. And the final decision was made by the Supreme Court. The same body you were fulminating against.
Since you seem to need to resort to ad hominem attacks to press your point be my guest, it doesn’t change the fact that the Bush Administration continues to trample on the Constitution.
Regarding Secular Humanism, Michael, I believe it’s only a matter of time before it will be formally recognized as a religion (it contains all the hallmarks) and then we shall have a conundrum at the level of domestic government. I also restate that I believe that there is no such thing as a purely Nihilist philosophy, simply because to absolutely deny absolutes is logically unsupportable
Back to Secular Humanism as a religion: In Torcaso v. Watkins, October 1961, the US Supreme Court said “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” While this statement contains a footnote indicating that the purpose of the case was to define Secular Humanism, the reasoning is clear and sound.
Further, the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals in Smith v. Bd. of Comm. of Alabama (1987) held that “The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the “delicate question” of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment, and we need not attempt to do so in this case, for we find that, even assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools of the textbook at issue in this case.”
Again, I believe the argument isn’t to the point of Secular Humanism’s nature as a religion or not, but that the case wasn’t developed and decided to that end. This particular case did not contest Secular humanism, but that it had not negatively impacted the establishment clause.
In Supreme Court decision Abington School District v. Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963); Justice Clark stated: “It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a “religion of secularism” is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a “religion of secularism” in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect.”
Once again the essential argument isn’t whether the “religion of secularism” exists, it’s whether or not it’s clearly implied existence has had any effect.
With regard to the early thinkers you mentioned, Michael, we’d all agree that in order to establish a religiously-neutral State, no endorsement of religion can be made by the State. Obvious. But in order to establish a Christian State (or what have you) such a belief could be the basis for the State. Equally obvious.
As far as stating there are no absolutes, which I believe is a component in an increasingly Nihilistic American society, again the argument is immediately dismissed. Likewise Secular Humanism’s essentially Nihilist philosophical core. Were it officially recognized as the religion is appears to certainly qualify to be, there’d be a near-immediate legal conundrum that would obsolete every State facility that, even tacitly, taught it at the exclusion of all other religions. This is the precise reality we deal with each and every day in this country. All it would take is a SCOTUS decision…
I personally find the notion of a purely Christian State the only likely successful society, but as long as I am an American, which should be until I die, I will stand with you, Michael, defending American government from the formal intrusion of every religion. Again, personally, as Brooks may imply quite brilliantly, morality and fairness require a basis and regular maintenance, and I would hope that all American officials had something approaching true Christian personal values.
register a new account »Posting Security