Slashdot Mirror

The problem is, when the votes were actually recounted, it was discovered that Gore was already over the top.

In what alternate universe did that happen? The final recounts revealed that Bush did indeed win. Nobody is going to accuse the NY Times of being Bushies but here is a better evaluation of the whole Myth and talks about Judicial Watch's involvement.

Well, you at least contest my examples here, although I'm still waiting for some counterexamples. Quickly:

The people of California watch the news, some of them even watch Fox.. Command came down from on high because the people on high at Fox wanted Arnold to win.

Regarding the press secretary request, I concede your point. It was Ari who suggested it first, I forgot. But Fox pushed it enthusiastically. Everyone else kinda said "WTF?" for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post. Your point is true, but the distinction is not really important.

The fact that you believe the Plame affair to be a minor issue is telling. It's a felony. I'm sure you've seen the Bush Sr. quote about revealing sources by now. But what bothers me is not so much that it happened, but that no one really seems to care if the felon is caught. If I were a true partisan this would please me; the Democrats can prove logically that there's a guaranteed felon in the White House and the only way to get rid of her is to elect a new administration. I mean, at least Poindexter had been pardoned.

Murdoch vs. Turner: Turner is no liberal. Nor is he married to Jane Fonda any longer. Besides, CNN has taken a giant step to the right to try to keep up with Fox's ratings. There was a FAIR study documenting this rightward shift on reliable sources; viewers can see it for themselves. I seek documentation to the contrary, that CNN, or NPR for that matter, is a liberal news outlet. You assert but do not prove this.

Which only proves the blindness of the left. While those of on the Right will concede you guys exist (but are hopelessly misguided, delusional, borderline anti-american, but you DO exist) you guys think the political spectrum goes from Joe Stalin to Joe Lieberman and anything to the right of there is only howling madness.

This is what I mean by calling names. You're not making an argument, you're calling me insane. This is not reasonable discourse, it's ad hominem attack. Besides, I, like you, have mostly libertarian leanings- I'm concerned foremost with an empirical basis for policy making. Clinton was quite good at this, the Bush Administration is famously afraid of it. I live in Pennsylvania, I've voted for Arlen Specter (but Rick Santorum scares the living daylights out of me). But you seem to think I'm some wacko because I don't see a communist conspiracy in the media.

...made pathetic policy choices that made the coming recession worse...

The last recession started in the last year of Clinton's administration with the 'dot com' bomb and ended in January 2003. It was the mildest recession ever according to Alan Greespan. So how did the Mr. Bush's policy choices impact the US economy? Looks more like he stopped a slide into recession cause by a stock market bubble created by the previous administration's eight years of mismanagement of the economy

...and is a complete moron...

That graduated from one of the most prestigious universities in the United States. Where did you go to school and what is your GPA? What does a nurse call the man that graduates last in his class from medical school? I believe the correct form of address is 'Doctor'.

I love how the socialist-democrats like to attack the person with unsupported ambiguous statements negative statements or 'Have you stopped beating you wide yet' type rhetoric. The next phase when confronted with facts is for the liberals to refuse you your 1st amendment rights by any means possible because as we all know 'the end justifies the means'.

One way to encourage reindustrialization adequate to the task of lowered population and higher resource efficiency might be to allow people threatened by imported disease to sue the globalist companies importing the cheap labor.

My GI generation father lives with some life-threatening conditions, and does he have some stories to tell since he moved from Iowa to the border with Mexico!

I rarely see the man anymore, however, so the change is hardly gradual and is quite palpable.

Sitting in a waiting line with illegals ahead of him for medical service is finally getting to him. Never a racist act nor word from him during his entire life, and now at the end of his life, he's having to think about what he was fighting for when he, before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, left the Quakers, where he could have easily evaded the draft, and volunteered to go fight the Germans. He is probably going to die quite a few years earlier for the want of a small amount of service from Medicare to which he is entitled. He will likely lose these years of life due to the degradation of Medicare by immigration promoted by globalist companies forcing wages for American workers down. He could actually get better care if he were an illegal rather than a WW II vet.

As Paul Craig Roberts reports - Friday, Oct. 3, 2003:

So you think your government looks out for you? Not nearly as much as it does for aliens.

On Sept. 24 Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that the Bush administration has quietly decided to stiff 6 million poor elderly and disabled Americans by denying them Medicare drug benefits. According to the Bush administration, these Americans are already covered under state Medicaid programs.

President Bush should read the newspapers. On Sept. 23 Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that "rising costs prompt states to reduce Medicaid further." It seems that the job loss recovery has forced virtually every state to take action to cut back on Medicaid.

Not to worry. All the 6 million poor and disabled Americans need to do is to acquire Mexican citizenship and recross the border as illegal aliens. Once Americans acquire the status of illegal aliens, their medical care is provided free without even a co-pay.

Can you imagine what things will happen when the boomers, whose economic and therefore reproductive viablity has already been decimated by government policy which is now compounded by immigration-induced age, if not race, discrimination, hit retirement and all that imported labor that was supposed to keep Social Security solvent is voting?

I'll admit I'm angry about this; however, the public health menace facing those on Medicare is a drop in the bucket compared to what is starting to become obvious to even the most dogmatic proponent of globalism:

Globalist companies are using immigration to drive down labor costs at the expense of profound risks to the public health from epidemics.

When SARS turned out not to be the threat so many feared, some thought this might have been due to quick rea

I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement,
Given a sufficiently large group of people, extreme "subcultures" happens with any cult, cause, religion, belief, movement, organisation or group. This does not mean the idea is a bad one, it just proves the group is successfully strong in numbers to have attracted people from MANY backgrounds who naturally have different "solutions" to the "problem." (in other words, every village has its idiots) and you cant please everybody.
However, this is a perfect example of the kind of negative "press" that can frustrate an already angry "Zealot" into becoming a "terrorist" for the "cause".
so to add to your comment, I would say, yes. If you dont have anything constructive to say, say nothing, ignore it. BUT, if you can respond with any intelligence in a positive way, go for it, the "Zealots" need all the help they can get.
Perhaps if we gave a second look as to why these "Zealots" are so passionate about their ideas, we might become a bit more tolerant to their views, or at the very least begin to understand what drove them crazy. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" --FDR

Take the top 5 years of American history in which discretionary spending increased the most (as a percentage of the previous year's spending). Two of those years were during WWII. Three of them were under a GOP-dominated Congress within the last five years. So much for Republican's lowering spending!

Even supposedly "tax-and-spend" president Bill Clinton managed to only have a 3.5% increase in discretionary spending during his administration (with a 0.7% decrease in non-defense discretionary spending). Reagan was famous for increasing discretionary spending 7%, while GWB has increased discretionary spending 15.6% and has increased non-defense spending a whopping 20.8% in merely three years of office! This has led to a whopping $450 billion dollar budget deficit for this year alone.

From the fiscally-conservative Cato Institute: here and here

This is in spite of approving huge tax-cuts to the rich in spite of the fact that we already have some of the lowest taxes in the world. This has twice required massive accounting trickery and Congressional action to avoid having our nation default on its debt. Bush is driving us into the ground with his lunatic economics! All of the recovery under the Republican "Contract with America" and under the Clinton administration has been brushed aside by Bush reckless combination of tax cuts and spending increases. Remember back when Clinton said that we were looking at an end to the national debt after paying off $600 billion and with it at a mere $5.7 billion back in 2000 instead of the $6.8 trillion that it is now?

In the mean time, Howard Dean has managed to keep a balanced budget on his state for 10 years, through two recessions all while paying for the social programs that needed support. Maybe we should compare Bush's record as a governor? It's pretty obvious who's gonna be better as President if you're looking to see the deficit taken care of. Then again, if you weren't aware of Bush's spend-thrift ways to begin with, you probably won't bother to read the links and get informed.

Well, if that's the case then I guess CNN made this article up about the waiver Clinton signed to transfer satellite technology to China. Of course there's been more documents declassified and reported on elsewhere but that's probably all made up too, huh? Then again, you probably think this is all part of that vast right wing conspiracy....

California Makes Getting A License Easy. All you need is a fake mexican consular id and you can be anybody. Fudging the picture will take some work though.

As a matter of fact, yes I *do* trust the government to count the ballots in Florida. They counted them once, and Bush won. They counted them a second time, and Bush still won. Furthermore, this whole myth that Bush lost the popular vote is a bunch of hogwash, since many states simply stopped counting votes once a sufficient victory margin was reached (lead > votes remaining). The goal is to reach a majority vote on the state level so votes can be counted on the electorate level; national counts are irrelevant to winning.

What people forget is that there is a "margin of error" in every election, sort of like a general adder that accounts for the inherhant dishonesty of the vote carriers & counters, and flaws in the voting material itself. For punchcard paper ballots, this works out to about 2.6% error.

That's normally a very good margin, when your candidates win by 15-20% victories, everyone looks the other way at the errors, because they don't matter. In close elections, that's when all the "dirty laundry" comes out, because each candidate needs to scrap together all the votes he or she can.

Many people are calling for a conversion to electronic recording systems, not realizing that there is error in these systems also. I've heard figures anywhere from 2 to 2.4% error, due to vote records "mysteriously" not delivered to be counted in the official ottals, plus interface errors leading to miscast votes. Then there's the issues in voting on "closed" systems -- some states have found voting machines that aren't even programmed correctly. Not exactly the end all solution there.

Then we have the California election on hold because opponents are calling for the installation of electronic balloting systems because a study shows votes will be miscounted... when a few days later, it turns out that the financial backers of the study are the electronic voting manufacturers... jeez, no impropriety here!

He lost. Get over it. Or face another defeat in a year.

A list like this already exists (in one form or another):

Media Research Center

and

NewsMax.com

Have fun.

One has to also take into account that prestigious universities will sometimes inflate student grades just to make themselves look good. *COUGH* Harvard *COUGH*. This article speaks for itself here.

Unfortunately those who should know about computers don't. Former CIA head John Deutch was found to be using his non-secured home PC to store sensitive government files, despite the fact that the CIA set him up with a secured PC at home. This is the former freakin' head of state intelligence for the US. He probably isn't a total idiot, but his lack of computer savvy extends to most of the population.

Should I assume you would grant NewsMax more credibility than the NY Times?

• The war is taking too long
• Hi, I'm Geraldo, and we are at x longitude East, y latitude North
• Hi, I'm Katie Couric, and I hope Saddam is OK!
• This is CNN. Saddam's not so bad!

• The war is taking too long
• Hi, I'm Geraldo, and we are at x longitude East, y latitude North
• Hi, I'm Katie Couric, and I hope Saddam is OK!
• This is CNN. Saddam's not so bad!

He's also a big fat idiotaccording to Al Franken.

As if Al Franken has any room to talk about idiots. As for the "big fat" part, go to rushlimbaugh.com and judge for yourself.

Since the handgun ban, crime has steadily gotten
much much much much worse. :) So much for the myth of the safer britain.

Will Smith was acquitted of rape, but he might run for office.

• "Yes, I was detained and harrassed by federal airport security without cause or explanation because my name is David Nelson. I am not allowed to know that I am on a do-not-fly list or what criteria put a person there in the first place."
• "Yes, I was forced to drink my own breast milk out of three bottles by federal airport security to prove it was not a "security risk."
• "Yes, my right to freely assembly has been infringed my Bush and his cronies with their establishment of (incredibly cyncially named) 'First Amendment Zones' that stipulate that demonstrators who are protesting the president must remain in specific "safe distances" often blocks away from presidential appearances, while "supporters" are allowed to demonstrate in the immediate vicinity.
• "Yes, my government is developing a system that will systematically spy on everyone, all of the time, in an effort to provide me better "security." Thankfully, budgetary politics in the Senate will hopefully kill this monstrosity."
• "Yes, my ability to fairly use information and art I paid for is being stifled and criminalized, to outrageous degrees."
• "Sorry, what was the question?"
  

Right, tell this to the people in China who disagree with the current govenment.

Um, China does not guarantee free speech. Thats kind of the whole point here. Try to pay attention more. Your response is the equivalent of this:
- "Its perfectly safe to point this gun loaded with blanks and somebody and pull the trigger"
- "But if they are real bullets it will hurt the person"

Duh!

Tell this to the Communists in the US during the 50's and 60's. At the time they were persecuted, in the US, for holding a somewhat unpopular belief about economics

No, they were persecuted for belonging to the Soviet backed communist party (which, btw, was proven to be giving aid to the Soviet Union during the time when they were a sworn enemy of the United States, according to CIA documents released in 1995).

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22 /225916.shtml

Not "people". Rebels. Insurrectionists. Organised criminals. Cultists. Terrorists. But never people. Not until well after the fact.

Do you remember the media coverage at Waco? "child molesting lunatic cultists" said BATF and the FBI, and thus it was faithfully reported by the media, without question. Won't someone think of the children! If it happened again today, we'd just say "terrorists" (or "Ba'ath loyalists") and send in the tanks. I doubt we'd even bother destroying evidence these days.

Get real....

The public opposition which TIA has invoked only means that the project is going "under the public radar." There are a variety of ways that TIA (or whatever it will be called next) can still get funding. The biggest issue IMHO is that the initiative has been pushed into a realm where watchdog groups can no longer monitor it. It would be easy for the project to get bits and pieces of funding from elsewhere like here. There is also decentralized funding, (i.e. - the program is broken up into numerous parts (gathering units) which are all individually funded in their respective areas and can still report to a centralized operations unit (analysis unit) which ties all the intelligence data together, therefore no one area could be an intelligence risk or have a complete picture of what is going on. NEED TO KNOW

But what the hell do I know....

Oh yeah, the democrats would never get in with big business.

I'm not denying republicans aren't guilty either, but dont give me some BS that democrats have their hands clean in that realm of politics.

If you still dont belive me, then perhaps you should take a trip to Opensecrects.org

Oh yeah, the democrats would never get in with big business.

I'm not denying republicans aren't guilty either, but dont give me some BS that democrats have their hands clean in that realm of politics.

If you still dont belive me, then perhaps you should take a trip to Opensecrects.org

So now there is now an obligation on the diverse community to seek out lies and publish them... why not make it the obligation of the publisher to fix his/her errors in truth when pointed out?

Why is it that we have to expect newspapers, TV media, radio, and such to report a reply, but we can't expect that from other publication sources that are just as publically available with current technology? Blogs and personal websites are just as accessable as MSNBC these days.

Like this crap.

this media....

Creator of 'Mr. Sterling' Admits: We TV Writers Are '99 Percent Leftist'

LA Times Editor Fingers and Addresses Liberal Bias in Own Paper

I'm just surprised the "deck of death" didn't show up. Or if the producers politics bent right, they could have shown the deck of weasels. (OK, this is a bit of a troll, hoping that newsmax will get /.ed)

Nice one. Except it's Halliburton Iraq!

when this thing lands and G.W. Bush, in full combat flight suit, steps off to greet the smiling Martian press...
... and LBJ is there already.

There are many upon many examples, this is only one of them.

As for the media not being able to record the protestors: What stopped them from walking down the block to the perimeter to do a broadcast

Yeah, I thought so.

And the US now has Dr. Germ. So...

Whats *really* funny is that your media uses this 'dr. germ' stuff, making a cartoon out of reality. is it too hard for people to understand a persons' clear title/rank/position, the department they worked for etc -- or is that clear, concise, informed reporting less useful to American Plutocracy than is the "Mrs.Germ is a boogywomen" Propaganda? There is something sickening about Americans lapping-up the propaganda on Iraq. Dehumanizing the "enemy" via this kind of "deck-of-cards" stuff is textbook. Its scary that Americans are not absolutely up-in-arms over what Bush and pals has actually done to iraq (unprovoked invasion), how it was sold (lies to UN(powell), lies to public, plagiarism, forgery (african nuclear materials documents)), and how the media portrayed the events during the war (pure 100% sanitized agitprop), and after (how exactly did the US flag, that was flying in newyork on 9.11 *HAPPEN* to get draped on the head of the sadam statue the media played over and over and over (minus the flag of course, they had been told to edit that out (too blatant)), WMD bs, and 'liberty-as-reason' switcheroo).

This 'deck of cards' thing is 100% disturbing... even more is this, http://www.newsmax.com/weasels/38.shtml which labels the leaders of France, Canada, Russia, Mexico, Kofi Annan, Arnette, Hans Blix weasels... oh, and they mix in good old Enemies Gadhafi, Castro and Kim Jong-Il... because the brainwashing of america is 100% complete on these folks, so why not use the previous PsyOps to muddy the waters on the characters of anyone who could possibly choose to OBJECT to america's latest warmongering...

Did the authors @ newsmax ever stop to think that all these US allies might be right? Obviously not, cause either your with us or against us. anyone who opposes operation-iraqi-freedom is a terrorist-lover.

NPR its virtually the only American Media that seems to be capable of balanced/objective international news.

I'm sorry, but something isn't coming through right in your post. Maybe you meant to write "Fox News" when instead you wrote "NPR."

And, about the "piknos mooching off taxpayers" - Are there really clueless rednecks like this still left?

Try asking Bill Moyers sometime where all his money comes from. He might not be getting all of his money from Uncle Sam, but he sure knows how to take what was originally a government-funded production and squeeze millions more out of it that he can hand over to the likes of tompaine.com.

McCarthy is dead

Is he? With groups like International ANSWER (a peacenik front group of the Workers World Party) running around, we could use someone like McCarthy right now.

Not everyone grew up on a diet of Jingoism and 100% Pure American Capitalism(TM).

Those who didn't only wish they did. :-) Since when does any expression that you might think your country's doing the Right Thing qualify as "jingoisn," anyway?

But really, is this the level of discourse of the American Right? Pinko-namecalling and Rush-Fucking-Limbaugh?

Don't even try to pretend, after the protest marches of recent weeks, that your side is above namecalling. "Bush == Hitler"? "Bush is a babykiller"? Pot, meet kettle...kettle, meet pot.

Yes, Russia is nominally capitalist now, but the Communist Party is still in a position of some power. Remember that while Boris Yeltsin was thought to have rid Russia of the Communist Party, he did not. So it's not quite that simple.

The country didn't become broke by turning capitalist. The country became broke because they lost the Cold War. They spent all of their resources trying to keep up with United States, and the U.S. just basically outspent them, particularly during the Reagan Administration.

To my knowledge, there are no communist countries that don't have money. Surely you know that China has currency, right? And China, by any accounting today, is the largest communist country in the world. Most people in China have a much lower standard of living then elsewhere in the world, particularly in comparison to the U.S.

Chinese citizens recieve only about US$35 a month from the Chinese government. This is expected to meet the basic needs of those in poverty. Could *you* live on $35 a month? Anyway, according to the article, there are about 14 million impoverished city residents in the country, and only about 4 million of those recieve even the minimum allowance.

The yearly per capita disposable income of the average Chinese person is about $620 for urban residents and $250 for rural dwellers, compared with the national U.S. average of $25,000. (Disposable income is the amount of money available for spending or saving.) Considering China has something like the 4th or 5th largest GDP in the world, this sucks. So if you measure the success of a sociopolitical/economic system by the standard of living of its people, the U.S.-style capitalism beats Chinese-style communism hands down. The results are similar for other communist countries.

Quite honestly, your post comes off as quite naive. Just guessing, but I'd have to guess you're a high school student right?

The real theme of conservatism as of late is to spit bile, intolerance, and contempt at anyone/everyone who doesn't buy their bullshit. I for one am sick of it.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

The real theme of conservatism as of late is to spit bile, intolerance, and contempt at anyone/everyone who doesn't buy their bullshit. I for one am sick of it.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Did you even read the SC's decision? They ruled (rightfully so!) that the Democrat's recounting of select areas of Florida (the poor and mostly democratic counties, oddly enough) gave those votes more weight, thus lessening the value of all the other votes of the state. Basically if the Dems had been crying for a complete statewide recount (which btw the bush camp was doing) they would have been fine. Instead they tried to skew the results in their favor and it fucked them in the end.

Before you even try to argue with me, imagine if every state was forced under pressure from the republicans to recount the ballets from white upper-class neighborhoods.

Try this... the Florida Supreme Court DID decide to do a FULL STATEWIDE RECOUNT until the Supreme WHORE Court stepped in and decided that a FULL STATEWIDE RECOUNT would "Irreparably Harm" SUPERFRAUD Bush.

You lose again GOP-KGB WHORE.
Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.


Bush Rejects Gore Offer of Statewide Hand Recount
NewsMax.com Wires - Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2000 (From a GOP-KGB WHOREBOY page)
George W. Bush tonight called for the Florida vote recounting to end and for the acceptance of the vote totals Friday, when overseas ballots are due.

He rejected Vice President Al Gore's two plans for settling the Florida vote recount. Earlier in the evening Gore promised:

* If Republicans allowed manual recounts to continue in Democrat-dominated Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, he would accept the final tally of those results added to the certified results from 64 other counties and overseas absentee ballots, due by midnight Friday.

* Or, "I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida,'' Gore said.
"I would also be willing to abide by that result and agree not to take any legal action to challenge that result.''

"We need a resolution that will be both fair and just," Gore, appearing with running mate Joe Lieberman, told reporters from the vice presidential residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory. in Washington.

Democrat Gore offered to meet with Texas Republican Gov. Bush.

"I propose that Gov. Bush and I meet personally, one on one, as soon as possible, before the vote count is finished, not to negotiate but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America.''

"I am willing to go to his house or meet him wherever he wants to meet, not to negotiate but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America," Gore said.

Gore said that, in addition to an immediate meeting, he and Bush should meet again once the election is settled "to reaffirm our national unity.''

"If I turn out to be successful, I'll be ready to travel to Governor Bush's home. If I am not, I'll be ready to meet him wherever he wishes,'' Gore said.

Gore said he was trying to honor the Constitution.

"This is the time to respect every voter and every vote,'' he said.

"This is the time to honor the true will of the people. So our goal must be what is right for America.''

(I can also list the text where Katherine "The Distraction KKK-Clown" Harris had her paid Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminal cronies correct incorrect military ballots for the GOP side and discard the Democrat military ballots. Then there is the matter of the fickle deadline and the GOP-KGB WHORE CHOICEPOINT scam with a 97% INCORRECT voter disqualification list which was paid for with $2 million in taxpayer dollars).

...large groups of American minorities to protect ...

Curiously, American minorities are somewhat underrepresented in actual combat MOS's.

But ignoring the facts makes it sound better, doesn't it?

People like you generally hate factual data, but I'll spit some out anyway:

England's story

Gun Death Stats... Please note on this page that Norway has a 32% ownership rate vs the US's 39%. By your calculations they should have nearly the same death rate as the US by firearms (homicides that is) but they're about 1/6th the US.

Keep trying, you'll find a stat the proves your point someday I guess.

"Nearly a billion dollars [usaid.gov] is "pitiful quantities?""

Yes, nearly 1B is pitiful, thats about 1/10th what Israel is getting this year (give or take, I don't have the numbers with me), and we didn't even promise to rebuild them. We spend nearly 1B a day on defense. Warlords are running most of Afghanistan from what I have been reading, and it still costs the US about 1.5B a month to occupy Afghanistan.

It's called a supplemental: $74.9 billion

You are refering to the bill that congress had to remind the president failed to even include money promised to Afghanistan? I recall that budget submission yes. I don't expect to see much of that make it to rebuilding Iraq judging by our record with Afghanistan so far. Bush has been intentionally vague about post-war Iraq, just like we were about Afghanistan.

You recall incorrectly. No such plan has even been floated

I'm heading to bed, so further google searching isn't in my plan for the evening, but I'm sure there are many on capitol hill calling for it. I do recall rumsfeld saying something along the lines of Iraqi oil paying for rebuilding as well. If anyone else has some links for this please feel free to share. Bush though hasn't said anything about it, in fact he has avoided the subject of post-war Iraq as much as possible.

Two hundred billion dollars plus would have bought us practically all the Iraqi oil we could have hauled off. Why didn't we just buy it, and save everybody a lot of time, money, and trouble?

The answer is simple. If we just bought the oil, only the well connected oil men would get rich, and Iraq might even be a significant regional power.

This way, the oil men AND the defencse contractors get the G$200 twice and only have to share a token fee with whatever puppet regime we cobble together to replace Saddam.

Well, yes, if by "failing in every respect to disarm Saddam" you mean, "failing in every respect to 'disarm' the fifty totalitarian regimes that happen to occupy the planet.

No, I meant Saddam. The weapon inspectors came out under his watch, and they didn't go back in until Bush's came on the scene. When the inspector's left in 1998 their statement was that Saddam would be able to replenish his arsenal of WoMD in months not years.

Clinton did bomb Iraq, here's some of his speech to the nation in December 1998.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,"

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

Sound familiar? But when it was all over, did the inspectors go back into Iraq? No, they've only gone back in at Bush's prompting, and they have

Clinton also worked to unify the Koreas, something we've wanted to do since the 50s, tried and failed to do by force, and *almost* managed to do with diplomacy before Bush FUBARed things with his "Axis of Evil" speech. Seriously, that impromptu poll the reporter took before the elections where Bush couldn't name one major world leader was prescient -- the man is a foriegn policy nightmare.


Are you serious?!!? North Korea had been secretly developing nuclear weapons since the mid 90's. In 1994, Carter helped negotiate a settlement that N. Korea would abide by the non proliferation agreement and we would give them aid in the form of light water reactors. Right after Carter received the Nobel Peace prize, N. Korea admitted that they had already not been living up to their word. Here's what Clinton had to say about North Korea and them having nuclear weaponry "We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear programme." "You do not want North Korea making bombs and selling them to the highest bidder because they cannot feed themselves through the winter."

Do you really believe that N. Korea suddenly decided to start building nuclear weapons once Bush came to power? Do you think Bush's statements about Saddam sound all that different from Clinton's? Clinton didn't get it done with N. Korea, he didn't get it done with Osama bin Laden, he didn't get it done with Saddam. Don't tell me that Clinton handed Bush the reigns of a world that wasn't "spiraling into the maw of its destruction".
It was falling apart.

and in other biased news Chicago Tribune Admits Patriotic Rallies Bigger Than Appeasement Protests

It amazes me that this old news still hangs on. It has been reported several times that this story does not hold water.

Ok, fine, I won't dispute that Iraq switched to the Euro. I don't know it to be true, but neither do I know it to be false. I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true. It still leaves quite a few holes in the following, taken directly from your previous post:

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

Where is the hard evidence to back this "real reason" up? I even went back and read the article just to make sure I didn't miss something. There was little in the way of facts, and much in the way of speculation, unwillingness to name sources, and accusation. Not to mention the obvious anti-Bush leftist slant...always good for the ol' credibility.

Of course, the "real story" is "being supressed" by the government and the media, so we have to take W. Clark's word for it. Ahh, the good old "they don't want you to know" tactic. Go over to newsmax.com and you'll see them pulling the same routine. And yes, I'm trying to act in the interest of fairness. Even though I do lean moderately conservative (maybe more libertarian, actually), I do believe that a large portion of what Newsmax puts out is contrived garbage.

That being said, I considered this article, as you suggested, based on the merits of the article, and found those merits to be severely lacking. I'm also unclear as to how being a healthcare manager at a "well-known east coast university" gives W. Clark inside access to the Bush administration's foreign policy initiatives.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Here, I found a website that questions FAIR:
UnFAIR FAIR

That cancels your reference.

Rush's numbers speak to the level of trust that people place in him, validating his truthfulness. You don't have to like that, and I am quite sure that you consider everyone who disagrees with you a sheep. The fact remains that people love Rush 'cause he is honest. BTW, I don't listen to Rush.

Who needs guided missiles?

I suggest that you research John F. Kennedy's tax cuts in the early 60s. He cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. Imagine paying 90% of your annual income as tax. Cutting the tax rate certainly did boost the economy in the 60s, and in the 80s when Reagan cut taxes again. The truth is that taxing people a reasonable amount is what is fair and keeps the government from being too large of a burden to the working population.

If you think the economy trends change monthly, you may also want to learn a tad more about economics than CNN reports. For info on when the current economic slowdown was first reported, check here and read this article. Wow! It was already starting in January 2001, before Bush took office. Add the 9/11 attack and additional slowdown, then the revelations of large corporate accounting scandals, which actually happened during Clintons watch and his lapses of honesty. The cumulative economic effects have been devestating in the US. I've been If you just want to bash Bush, then just admit it, no problem. I have been unemployed for a while now myself and am very anxious for recovery too, but share blame everywhere it is deserved.

heston is not "da bomb." have you seen "bowling for columbine"?

Michael Moore is an idiot, and a piss-poor excuse for a human being.

• big fat line big fat line big fat line big fat line big fat line