Slashdot Mirror

You've got Google, use it. According to the budget explorer roughly 644 billion for health and human services and 475 billion for the DOD. And NASA? 15 billion. The Executive office of the President gets about 25 billion BTW.

"Remember that he changed a budget surplus of almost US$ 480 billion into the greatest deficit America has ever faced."

I suspect that the collapse of the stock bubble had as much of an effect on that as has Bush. Further, there was never any $480 billion surplus. When Clinton left office, there was a surplus of $86.4 billion which they characterized as a surplus of $236.2 billion (by counting the social security surplus, etc. with general receipts).

Source: p. 317 of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf

However, 1999 and 2000 were the only years that the government ran an actual surplus. Not coincidentally, those were also the two years when Enron, et.al. were reporting non-existent profits (and presumably paying taxes on them) instead of what turned out to be large losses.

This is not to say that Bush has been a great economic president. He hasn't. He's managed to change things to the point that the rich (like himself and the Kerrys) actually pay a lower tax rate than the average (I'm still waiting for a democrat to notice this and run on a flat tax platform as a soak the rich program). Further, he eliminated the inheritance tax which had previously served to reduce the cross generational persistence of wealth. Finally, he has expanded spending in all areas (although he is now backing off on this a bit).

According to this page, here are the science budgets for 2004-2006:

2004: $5,600M
2005 (est): $5,527M
2006 (est): $5,476M

That doesn't look like too big of a change. Does losing $50 million really do that much?

Our government's policies are not consistent regarding science and technology, and both President Bush and Congress are to blame. Our lawmakers don't understand the human impact of their decisions regarding the budgets of agencies like NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Every time they re-allocate funds from one project to another, cut programs, or fail to increase the NASA and NSF budgets sufficiently to account for inflation, scientists and engineers lose their jobs. The U.S. government is shooting itself in the foot when it comes to our global competitiveness in science and technology.

"(http://www.whitehouse.gov/~jkauzlar)"

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nice website. :P

Seriously, though, your post was so devoid of useful content that I actually feel stupider for having read it.

Slashdotters don't need to read this filth. We are about science, take the bible BS elsewhere.

That's nothing. I voted republican because typing 'w' takes me here. Those democrats better catch up!

From the Trivia section of the Wikipedia article: Karl Rove's reputation for political dirty tricks is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian". The documentary Bush's Brain "...depicts Rove as the most powerful political consultant in American history and, in essence, a co-president" according to USA Today. [101] [101] links to a USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-03-1 1-southwest-film-fest_x.htm

"Smoke gets in your Eyes" - New York Times article: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB 0916FB345B0C728FDDA90994DD404482&n=Top%2FReference %2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FR%2FRove%2C%20Karl

OK, I would not say that any of these links constitute absolute proof (except for the first one, but this wasn't the main point of our disagreement), but they do indicate that my opinion is not outside mainstream thought. Sorry for not bringing up more articles, but I really do not have a total source list for this matter handy.

Now, if you could find solid proof of the dreaded WMDs that George W. was so worried about before the Iraq invasion (and he still half-heartedly allures that exist), I would be very impressed.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

• All right. This morning the President taped his radio address, it's on energy and, specifically, investing in new technologies, specifically, nuclear energy. And he does discuss the global-nuclear energy partnership that you have heard about. He then had his normal briefings.
• I don't know about what the President is specifically going to address. I can say that the President has specifically addressed the need to train the Iraqi forces in a way that reflects values and human decency. He's been very forthright about that, that that is part of the training that will take place by U.S. and coalition forces as the police forces in Iraq are trained. And it is a concern, the President has spoken out particularly about that and I expect that he will continue to do so.
• Then he will go to Tampa and have remarks on the war on terror. There are about 500 people in the audience -- these are a cross-section of the area. Tickets are distributed like we have for the Louisville, Kentucky event and other events like this. I anticipate that the President will take questions from the audience, much as he did in Kentucky. It's part of the President's continuing dialogue with the American people about how we must fight and win this war on terror, both abroad and using all the tools that are available to the United States. So he will very much recap about what he did in the State of the Union about those aspects of the war on terror.

Bush isn't from Texas, he's from Connecticut.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

having your church/synagogue/mosque celebrate the birthday of a human being not associated in any way with God is idolatry

Are you sure you feel that way?

Wait, wait, you forgot a big one! http://www.whitehouse.gov/

it's the illuminati, my friend. together with the W..orld Af,f,airs C_ou.nc1l. Even Duby8 bows down to them:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20 051212-4.html

or who do you think is pulling the strings?

oh wait, /. logs our IPs right? Nevermind.

peace

"PS" the word in this image is: aborted

Try these then:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021002-2.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021007-8.html

Why don't you search in them for September 11 or Al Qaeda?

Try these then:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021002-2.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021007-8.html

Why don't you search in them for September 11 or Al Qaeda?

your logical fallacy is known as a 'false dichotomy' or a false choice.

you see, you assume that we EITHER go to the moon OR 'get our house in order first'. Why can't we do both simultaneously...hmmm...

And, this is definitely not a budget issue. DoD spending vs. Nasa spending...it's a joke.

Who goes on holiday when their house is a mess eh?

You're not joking, are you? Some (most?) slashdot readers ALWAYS have a messy house, holiday or not...I know I wouldn't let a messy house keep me from going on a weeklong heli-boarding trip in Alaska...

Plus weren't there like 12-16 reasons for war?

It is an immoral act for the aggressor to revise the cause for war after engaging.

Revisionisms by the Intelligence Brief:

• "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

  [. . .]

  The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

  Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

  --GW Bush - March 17, 2003

  
  
  

• "Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom."

  --GW Bush June 9, 2003

  
  
  

• "Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world."

  --GW Bush, January 29, 2004 State of the Uninon Address

Just when did Conservatives become concerned that UN Security Council resolutions might be revealed as "empty threats"? Did anyone inform John Bolton of this?

Plus weren't there like 12-16 reasons for war?

It is an immoral act for the aggressor to revise the cause for war after engaging.

Revisionisms by the Intelligence Brief:

• "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

  [. . .]

  The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

  Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

  --GW Bush - March 17, 2003

  
  
  

• "Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom."

  --GW Bush June 9, 2003

  
  
  

• "Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world."

  --GW Bush, January 29, 2004 State of the Uninon Address

Just when did Conservatives become concerned that UN Security Council resolutions might be revealed as "empty threats"? Did anyone inform John Bolton of this?

Plus weren't there like 12-16 reasons for war?

It is an immoral act for the aggressor to revise the cause for war after engaging.

Revisionisms by the Intelligence Brief:

• "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

  [. . .]

  The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

  Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

  --GW Bush - March 17, 2003

  
  
  

• "Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom."

  --GW Bush June 9, 2003

  
  
  

• "Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world."

  --GW Bush, January 29, 2004 State of the Uninon Address

Just when did Conservatives become concerned that UN Security Council resolutions might be revealed as "empty threats"? Did anyone inform John Bolton of this?

Oh, is this why Miserable Failure still goes to President Bush?

Oh, is this why Miserable Failure still goes to President Bush?

Q: If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

See the White House page .

I think you meant to send that here ... otherwise its just trolling.

Funny, this still comes up for "miserable failure".

In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States. This is a targeted program to intercept communications in which intelligence professionals have reason to believe that at least one person is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a related terrorist organization. The program applies only to international communications. In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States

from chimpanzee-a to chimpanzee-W

Not a big fan of the war on terror? Good for you.

What are you talking about? The President supports getting warrants.
In HIS own words:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
G.W.B. April 20, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20 040420-2.html

Stealing?

You mean Google not only copy an entire article, but they also somehow remove it from the other company's website?

Oh, wait, you meant "stealing" in the "not actually stealing, but really just copying" sense. So Google are copying entire articles and presenting them as their own property, are they?

Oh, wait, what you actually meant was "stealing" in the sense of "linking to". Wow, that's a terrible crime. Hey, look at this - I just stole George Bush! Does that make me a terrorist, do you think?

I'm pretty sure that if they gave this order under the guise of deterring "terrorism" it's pretty much in vain, in that more valuable intel is already available in the public domain, weaknesses in any event should be known, just as code audits are released in the public domain. I can think of 1 site off the top of my head that is pretty big on releasing "Eye-Ball-Series" on industrial, government, and public facilities

Liberty Victoria is the aussie's version of Amerika's ACLU, I've always envisioned AU's law as pretty right on and have taken a liking to most of their politics (with the steady decline of my countries) altho this seem just to be some unrelated bullying more than an overt government policy to prevent terrorism.

On a completely unrelated side note, I heard from a friend of mine in AU said that the Adelaide Museum director said they couldn't seel the $200,000 AUS valued whale vomit ball as under federal law it's part of a whale and therefore protected. She also went on to say that they could donate the item to the Adelaide Museum for display indefinately.

Of course, regardless of how the legal issue is finally resolved, it's pretty sad that Bush lied about it until he was caught. Consider his comments in this speech.

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

Now that it's out in the open, they claim it is legal. If they were so sure, why didn't they simply announce they were going to be doing it?

What do you call a person within the boarders of a country, not a citizen of the country, during the time of war, without any sort of uniform, receiving communication from the enemy?

A dangerous criminal. We have laws for dealing with them. These laws were created specifically to put checks and balances in place to ensure freedom and democracy stay alive. These laws ban the kind of things you see in dictatorships like indefinite imprisonment without charges, spying on citizens who oppose the government, torture of prisoners, and secret trials where the defendant is not allowed to have access to lawyers or to see and challenge all the evidence presented against them. These are all things that this administration has claimed the power to do (oh, but only against the bad guys, of course).

This is the type of person that 150 years ago would not be arrested by the police, and not tried by citizen courts.

Please justify this statement with historical examples.

If you look at things this way, it is very easy to see why the administration went to Congress and informed them on what they were doing, and nothing was done. It would also explain why the administration believes they are doing the right thing, within the law.

He only informed a very select few members of Congress, and we don't know how much he told them nor whether or not what he told them is true. After all, he's acted to prevent oversight that would allow fact checking. We do know however that he's presented tainted evidence to Congress before, and look where that got us. We also know that he's lied about wiretaps before.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

--George W. Bush, during a 2004 campaign speech

Honestly, how can you trust this man anymore? There are no legitimate reasons to evade FISA. The only other reasons are to spy on people who shouldn't be spied on or to go on a fishing expedition through a wide sea of innocent people in the hopes of grabbing someone guilty. These are the acts of man who has no respect for rule of law.

That's exactly what the US, Australia and Great Britain are doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20 060111-8.html

And they are getting crap for it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7744

I happened to do a websearch on this. Came up with something interesting:

The complete quote (as produced by Malkin):

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

In bold are the sections that the NY Times used:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

In a Bush speech two months ago, Bush quoted Starr as well. In bold are the sections that Bush quoted in his speech:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20 051130-2.html

I had to smile at the symmetry of the distortions. The NYTimes used one section of the quote and ignored the rest, and Bush ignored those sections and used only the rest.

Bush also pressured an awful lot of people into bending intelligence reports to sound the way he wanted them and interpred Intelligence information in the way that suited his political goals. To me that is lying albeit in a roundabout way. I have read some of the pre-invasion reports on Iraqi WMD capabilities used to justify the invasion and that were made public. They don't exactly tell lies but they do seem to be written in such a way as to make them easy to misunderstand. I suppose it depends on how you define lies. Did he go on television and tell outright easily provable lies? You tell me:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source, Now revealed to be crap.

"We've [learned] that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases."

Source, Direct Bush quote, Now revealed to be crap.

"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who]"

Note the present tense, those WMD's that Saddam supposedly controlled at the time those words were spoken have yet to be found. The rest of the statement is true.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein [had] an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

At the time those words were spoken and used to justify the invasion the US administration was already well aware of reports by the IAEA that there were no indications of the Iraqis having a significant nuclear weapons making capability. I wonder why that wasn't mentioned in the next breath?

According to the Whie House Press Briefing on June 16, 2005. Having a set timetable of goals (seems to me like they're implying an exit plan) would show weakness to the terrorists and the insurgency (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/2 0050616-5.html). Personally, I feel this is a load of bull. Seems to me like we're going into another Vietnam, with no plans for leaving, fighting an unconventional enemy which continues to grow and is aided by a large number of the citizens of the country, helping a government which seems to be doing very little to help itself. And now we're being told that our military is being stretched too thin...anyone feel a draft?

In the meantime, until this matter is ruled on, it seems to me that another concern with this program that nobody has mentioned is the cost. It cannot be cheap for the NSA to caputure all that e-mail and all those phone calls. To this end, it seems appropriate that we should all 'help' the NSA by automatically sending them copies of all the e-mail we send. We should probably let Bush know too. So, may I politely suggest that all /.ers automatically CC all their e-mail to

nsapao@nsa.gov, and
presaident@whitehouse.gov

Surely this would be the most patriotic slashdot effect ever! ;)

BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. link

the only reason our asshole prez wants to know where all the good porn sites are is because he sits arround jacking himself all day & plans to create a giant pay porn database on http://whitehouse.gov/
u think this guy actually makes any policy? hah all his staff & his dad make the decision giving bush & his friends plenty of time to hound google for good porn links!

If u love facism & need a one world order so u can plunder resorces gallore!!! vote for bush!

There are various examples that show without a shred of doubt that there is no intelligent design around here.

We have a Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and a more generic S.J. Resolution 23 - Authorization for Use of Military Force for militar actions against anyone event tangetialy involved with 9/11. What red tape has been bypassed? They didn't use the words "declare war", and they didn't list specific countries, but the president didn't just go out an act.

FAILURE

-metric

I'd feel lucky, but I'm an American citizen and have to put with his shit for 3 more years. It's good to know the Google feature works. George Bush is a miserable failure of a president and a man. Being proud to break the law is not a quality you want in a leader. Supporting censorship, torture, extraordinary rendition, and other crimes is not what the leaders of a "free" country should be doing. Jack Abramoff and the culture of corruption pervading the Republican party are a disgrace to this country and American citizens everywhere. Bush, resign.

If it was about oil then how come we aren't taking it? Why was it turned over to Iraq again and very quickly? We purchase oil from there before and after the war and in roughly the same amounts. Face it, your believing a lie. Do you deny the French were taking money from the OIL for food program? Take a look here - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocus ID=97&Body=Oil-for-Food&Body1=inquiry . Maybe you haven't heard of Bosnia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1469896.st m . It was a UN action in the 1990s and the US participated. The justification was mainly genocide. Maybe you are in denial about Saddam? Here, get to know him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein . Here is a short list of resolutions that he has violated - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect 2.html . Every one of them you can look up for yourself at the UN site if you don't believe it. Perhaps it is that you don't believe the world has been at war for many millenia - that would be ignorance of history that is inexcuseable.

More like it, you think you know more than you really do and by the way I'm probably old enough to be at least your father if not your grandfather. I keep telling young people about stuff like this, they don't believe me and then they make the mistake I told them about. Happens over and over again. Amusing when they admit I was right when caught. The truly stupid (stupid as in a stupor, not as in dumb) continue to deny that I'm right, especially in the face of facts like I have shown you above. Up to now I wouldn't say that you're stupid or even dumb, you're learning. The choice is yours now that I have shown you the undeniable facts. You can't even say I'm deluded because I used sources that can't even be disputed. some people call this "those stubborn facts again."

Maybe it would also help to mention that Iraq was a haven for terrorists. Dozens of them were arrested right after we captured Baghdad including this guy wanted for over a decade - http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq .abbas.arrested/ . Here is yet another article on others - http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

Even today Hilary Clinton won't say it was a mistake for her to vote to go to war. It took a lot to get Sen. Kerry to say it was, he voted to go to war too. Both know it was the right thing to do and yes - had nothing to do with oil or even bad intelligence. Kerry simply thought he could get elected by being anti-war so he went for the propaganda. He had nothing else to offer (don't believe that? What else was he about then? Without looking or googling). I remember people like you when Carter and then Clinton came to power. They said we would never be at war with them in power and both took military action. I can remember Kennedy too, however that is another discussion. Take the red pill and read what I sent you or take the blue pill and continue to be ignorant. Hopefully you will take the red pill and wake up.

We are hugely off topic here. Sorry /. Please forgive us.
I'll leave you with this thought. Regardless of if you think I'm right, deluded, whatever, please keep your mind open and consider both sides. Both sides tell you the truth sometimes and both sides tell yo

In other news, the Bush administration wants to look through Google's records to see how often search results included critique of the war in Iraq

They already did that

a

Well - as long as you're happy with the new US motto:

America: still more rights then North Korea

Aw, shucks! The US is WAY better than that!

In the Index of Economic Freedom 2006 , the US ranks 9th in the world, tied with Australia and New Zealand. North Korea ranks 157th. That is a noticable gap.

Plus, I think you have the motto wrong. It is "In God We Trust"

Of course, it is as easy to be mistaken about these issues as it is about the legality of the NSA surveillance program, which actually has a strong legal foundation.

I don't know which is more shameful, the sorry state of government today, or that so few people think there's a problem. It's sad.

Most people don't think it is a problem for one of two reasons:

1) They think that conducting surveillance on people in direct communication with known members of terrorist organizations that have recently attacked the United States is actually a good idea.

2) They understand that the NSA program is very likely legal, as noted by:
The current Attorney General
A former Clinton administration Assistant Attorney General
The Lawyers at Powerline blog
and others in commentary & response.

High treason is quite explicitly attempting to forcibly overthrow the government. While that might be the effect of the Bush administration, it would be very difficult to prove it as the aim

High treason? Impeachment? right....

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Here's an actual quote:

"[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

President George W. Bush, 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20 040420-2.html