Regressive Decision

Don't forget

2004-12-07T16:02:00.000-05:00

Blasphemy for Fun and profit

2004-11-25T22:39:00.000-05:00

The contention:
"I just wanted to say that the biggest reason I love George Bush is because of his faith. Mainly that he belives in and prays to the same God that I belive in and pray to. And George W.'s faith permeates into his politics, making him a man of integrity, compassion and courage. He is a good man. which why so many people hate him, because he is a good man. well I guess I shouldn't say "so many " people, because obviously there are plenty of people in this country who don't hate him. and for that I am so thankful."

The riposte:
Of all the reasons to vote for someone... oh my fucking god (every pun intended).
I see why Kerry lost the God-fearing vote...
Nevermind the idea that civil liberties are at stake
Aren't they? Aren't they?
by a nut job
Preach it, sister.
who thinks he speaks to god...
Thinking he speaks to God is not the problem - thinking God speaks back is the problem!
compassion froma man who started a war for no reason
No reason at all

You selfish bitch.
and continues to battle for no reason,
None at all.
courage from a man who hid behind his family's wealth and power to avoid combat,

and integrity from a man who is hated by so many countries and his own people.
Hated by his own people. Why, he didn't even have a mandate...

We are a country divide because of idiots
Typo.
who follow a man because they ASSUME he prays every night.
Like, who does that?
People don't hate George Bush because he is a good man,
No - of course not.
they hate him because he is dangerous for this country...
Because, really, who knows what danger in terms of national security is more than a heroin whore?
good or bad has nothing to do with it.
No, because we're beyond morality.
But a man who believes he is truly divine
Unsubstantiated allegation.
and will go to heaven
Shouldn't we all?
has no stake in this world and those he rules.... and surrounded by yes men....
Like Clarke. Or O'Neill.......
well, we'll just have to raise a war on our own soil against the fools and hypocrites.
Go right ahead, with your Blue Army...

This is why we don't worry about North Korea

2004-11-19T04:28:00.000-05:00

North Korea’s official media have dropped the honorific ``dear leader’’ from reports on Kim Jong Il, a Japanese news agency reported a day after other reports said his portrait had been removed at some public sites. The North’s Korean Central Broadcast, the Korean Central News Agency and other media are describing the nation’s leader as ``general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea,’’ ``chairman of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea National Defense Commission’’ and ``supreme commander of the Korean People’s Army,’’ Tokyo-based Radiopress said on its Web site.

I wonder why......................

The New Republic(ans).

2004-11-11T19:47:00.000-05:00

Still, in the end, the nomination fell to Kerry, who, as I expected all along, duly lost the election to George W. Bush. Kerry (assisted by genius advisers like Bob Shrum and John Sasso) underperformed--in comparison with both Gore and with his own expectations--with virtually every demographic group he had targeted: youth, women, Latinos, African Americans, Catholics, Jews. The big money behind the Democratic campaign--roughly $100 million ploughed into 527 committees by three of the wealthiest men in America--was not enough. The convention had been an exercise in false enthusiasm, and the campaign was an exercise in failed enthusiasm.

...

I actually believe that, had Lieberman won the nomination, he would have won the election. I think Gore would have as well. Notwithstanding his Iraq position, with which I disagree, Gore is not a foreign policy patsy, as he showed during the Clinton administration. Like Lieberman, people know where he stands--in the solid center.

Tuesday's Boston Globe brings two pieces of chilling news. Apparently, Howard Dean is contemplating a bid for chairman of the Democratic National Committee. ~~It almost makes you want Terry McAuliffe to stay.~~ The second item was a run-on interview with Kerry's brother, Cameron, who revealed that John just might run for president again and that, in any case, "he's going to ... be a voice for the 55 million people who voted for him." Another aide confided that Kerry "has been working the phones like crazy." But Kerry is not the voice of 55 million people, or even the 55.9 million people who voted for him. It was these people's slightly hysterical antagonism to Bush that brought them (reluctantly) to Kerry rather than anything intrinsic to Kerry himself. In any event, Bush won't be around in 2008, so disdain and hate will no longer produce Democratic votes.

Even then, no one seemed to like Kerry. (The only person I've known who really does is David Thorne, the brother of his first wife and his classmate at Yale.) Kerry's initial defeats (he also lost a race for Massachusetts' fifth congressional district in 1972) did not deflect him from his ambitions, but he deferred them to attend BC Law School and then work as a prosecutor. He got back into politics in 1982, with his election as Michael Dukakis's lieutenant governor, where his own unpleasantness was somewhat shielded by that of his boss.

He was first elected to the Senate in 1984, the same year as Al Gore. Something demonic in Kerry persuaded him to belittle Gore whenever we met. As their first term started, Kerry boasted to me that he had beaten out Gore for a coveted seat on the Foreign Relations Committee, while Gore had to content himself with Armed Services. But it was the latter committee that went on to do much of the heavy lifting of the next two decades, while J. William Fulbright's old Foreign Relations Committee went into a steep decline. Kerry also became a member of the Intelligence Committee, whose public meetings he attended sparingly and--if one judges from his book The New War--from which he learned little about the terrorist threat that he described so murkily in the last campaign. By contrast, Gore created a real record for himself: on the environment; the Internet; arms control; and nuclear strategy, where he introduced the revolutionary idea of the single-warhead missile.

Today, Democrats are overcome with despair. And I do not doubt that Bush's second term will have its abuses and its nastiness. But they should not delude themselves: John Kerry would not have been a good president; he might even have been a dangerously bad one. Next time, Democrats need to nominate not merely a candidate who they imagine can win but a candidate who deserves to.

Dan, we love you

2004-11-07T03:50:00.000-05:00

The message

2004-11-06T17:16:00.000-05:00

Congratulations, Republicans...

On getting out the homophobic vote.

I'm not kidding. The number one issue among people voting for Bush was social issues, and we only need look at the fact that the anti-gay marriage rights amendments passed in all 11 states to see that the Christian Coalition certainly made it to the polls. I hope the more sane, even socially liberal, members of the Republican Party don't expect their party to become less intolerant any time soon. This year has made it obvious that the Republicans, to win, must be the party of evangelical nutjobs. Look at your allies, guys, look at the votes that are propping your candidate up.

Look at the message you're sending.

You are not the party of Rudy Guiliani, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or even John McCain (yes, these people are members of your party, but they do not represent its base).

You are the party of Santorum. You're the party of Lott, and of Thurmond, and of Scalia.

If you plan on trying to make the party more tolerant, don't expect to bring your base with you.

ProgressiveDecision endorses Tax Reform

2004-11-06T17:11:00.000-05:00

What is Wrong Here?
If what CNN.com says is true (its too horrible to mention). Then its the end of the free world as we know it. Ok a little exaggeration but its still really really bad!!! Next time you hear from me Ill be in some beautiful ~~foreign~~ country where taxes don't matter.

Is Ben calling for Tax Reform?

Posted by Ben at 12:06 PM | Ben's Website | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defeat Speech

2004-11-06T17:02:00.000-05:00

This marking the 4th day after the RD-endorsed candidate, George W. Bush, lost in a landslide...

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. You just have no idea how warming and how generous that welcome is, your love is, your affection, and I'm gratified by it. I'm sorry that we got here a little bit late and a bit short.

Earlier today, I spoke to President ~~Bush~~ Kerry, and I offered him and ~~Laura~~ Tah-Ray-Zahhhhhhour congratulations on their victory. We had a good conversation and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need - the desperate need - for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today, I hope that we can begin the healing. In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.

I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail. But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio. And therefore, we can not win this election.

My friends, it was here that we began our campaign for the presidency. And all we had was hope and a vision for a better America. It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years traveling this country, coming to know so many of you. I wish that I could just wrap you in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across this nation. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience member: We still got your back!

Thank you, man. And I assure you - you watch - I'll still have yours.

I will always be particularly grateful to the colleague that you just heard from who became my partner, my very close friend, an extraordinary leader, ~~John Edwards~~Dick Cheney. And I thank him for everything he did. ~~John~~ Dickand I would be the first to tell you that we owe so much to our families. They're here with us today. They were with us every single step of the way. They sustained us. They went out on their own and they multiplied our campaign, all across this country.

No one did this more with grace and with courage and candor. For that, I love than my wife, ~~Teresa~~Laurahhhhh. And I thank her. Thank you. And our children were there every single step of the way. It was unbelievable. ~~Vanessa, Alex, Chris, Andre and John,~~ Elizabeth and Jennafrom my family, and ~~Elizabeth Edwards~~Lynne Cheney who is so remarkable and so strong and so smart. ~~And Johnny and Cate who went out there on her own just like my daughters did. And also Emma Claire and Jack who were up beyond their bedtime last night, like a lot of us.~~

I want to thank my crewmates and my friends from 35 years ago in 'BAMA. That great 'band of brothers' who crisscrossed this country on my behalf through 2004. Thank you. They had the courage to speak the truth back then, and they spoke it again this year, and for that, I will forever be grateful.

And thanks also as I look around here to friends and family of a lifetime. Some from college, friends made all across the years, and then all across the miles of this campaign. You are so special. You brought the gift of your passion for our country and the possibilities of change, and that will stay with us, and with this country forever.

Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and independents who stood with us, and everyone who voted no matter who their candidate was.

And thanks to my absolutely unbelievable, dedicated staff, led by a wonderful campaign manager ~~Mary Beth Cahill~~Karl Rove, who did an extraordinary job. There's so much written about campaigns, and there's so much that Americans never get to see. I wish they could all spend a day on a campaign and see how hard these folks work to make America better. It is its own unbelievable contribution to our democracy, and it's a gift to everybody. But especially to me. And I'm grateful to each and every one of you, and I thank your families, and I thank you for the sacrifices you've made.

And to all the volunteers, all across this country who gave so much of themselves. You know, thanks to William Field, a six-year-old who collected $680, a quarter and a dollar at a time selling bracelets during the summer to help change America. Thanks to Michael Benson from Florida who I spied in a rope line holding a container of money, and turned out he raided his piggy bank and wanted to contribute. And thanks to Alana Wexler who is 11 years old and started kids for Kerry all across our country. I think of the brigades of students and people, young and old, who took time to travel, time off from work, their own vacation time to work in states far and wide. They braved the hot days of summer and the cold days of the fall and the winter to knock on doors because they were determined to open the doors of opportunity to all Americans. They worked their hearts out, and I wish… you don't know how much they, could have brought this race home for you for them, and I say to them now, don't lose faith.

What you did made a difference, and building on itself -- building on itself, we go on to make a difference another day. I promise you, that time will come. The time will come, the election will come when your work and your ballots will change the world, and it's worth fighting for.

I want to especially say to the American people in this journey, you have given me honor and the gift of listening and learning from you. I have visited your homes. I have visited your churches. I've visited your union halls. I've heard your stories, I know your struggles, I know your hopes. They're part of me now, and I will never forget you, and I'll never stop fighting for you.

You may not understand completely in what ways, but it is true when I say to you that you have taught me and you've tested me and you've lifted me up, and you made me stronger, I did my best to express my vision and my hopes for America. We worked hard, and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently.

But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth.

With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.

I hope President ~~Bush~~ Kerrywill advance those values in the coming years. I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide. I know this is a difficult time for my supporters, but I ask them, all of you, to join me in doing that.

Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror. I will also do everything in my power to ensure that my party, a proud ~~Democratic~~ ~~Rethuglican~~RepublicanParty, stands true to our best hopes and ideals.

I believe that what we started in this campaign will not end here. And I know our fight goes on to put America back to work and make our economy a great engine of job growth. Our fight goes on to make affordable health care an accessible right for all Americans, not a privilege. Our fight goes on to protect the environment, to achieve equality, to push the frontiers of science and discovery,and to restore America's reputation in the world. I believe that all of this will happen -- and sooner than we may think -- because we're America. And America always moves forward.

I've been honored to represent the citizens of this commonwealth in the United States Senate now for 20 years. And I pledge to them that in the years ahead, I'm going to fight on for the people and for the principles that I've learned and lived with here in Massachusetts.

I'm proud of what we stood for in this campaign, and of what we accomplished. When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race. But we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation, the lives of our families. And we defined that choice to America.

I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us. I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good.

So here -- so with a grateful heart -- I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I've come to know our vast country so much better. Thanks to all of you and what a privilege it has been. And that prayer is very simple: God bless America. Thank you.

QaQaa gate closing

2004-10-29T22:01:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

Maj. Austin Pearson said at a Pentagon news conference that he was tasked in the days after the fall of the Iraqi regime with a mission to secure and destroy ammunition and explosives. He led a 25-man team called Task Force Bullet.

Well, I guess that Pentagon did the job it was supposed to again.

God bless our brave men and women serving in the Iraqi Liberation campaign.

Kerry and the New York Times are WRONG

2004-10-29T03:38:00.000-04:00

Everyone's yelling and screaming about the MISSING EXPLOSIVES in Iraq nowadays... and Kerry's out to blame Bush for botching this job up.

As usual, Kerry is lying... and so is the New York Times.

NBC Nightly News Reported That On April 10, 2003, One Day After Baghdad Fell, U.S. Troops Entered Al-Qaqaa And Did Not Find Explosives. NBC'S JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: "April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq." (NBC's "Nightly News," 10/25/04)

No Materials Under IAEA Seals Were Discovered When Coalition Troops Searched Site In April 2003. "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S.-led forces searched the Qaqaa facility after the invasion. 'Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations,' he said. 'The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility. While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.'" (Colum Lynch and Bradley Graham, "Iraqi Explosives Missing, U.N. Is Told," The Washington Post, 10/26/04)

IAEA Head Told U.N. Security Council Explosives Were Unaccounted For One Month Before Invasion. "IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council one month before the allied invasion that Iraq had moved some of its highly explosive HMX from the Al Qaqaa site. The United Nations could not verify Iraqi claims that it used the explosives for commercial uses. The missing explosives include HMX as well as RDX, two highly explosive substances used to make C-5 plastic devices that can be used for legitimate commercial purposes, or by terrorists to bring down an airplane." (Rowan Scarborough, "Pentagon Responds To Missing-Explosives Report," The Washington Times, 10/26/04)

So, who do you want in the Oval Office? A flip-flopper whose only consistent tactic is that he lies through his teeth, or George W. Bush?

Qaqaa

2004-10-28T14:18:00.000-04:00

ABC says it has “confidential IAEA documents” showing that “on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency’s inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility” — not 380 tons as reported by The New York Times on Monday.”

Your moment of Zen

2004-10-18T21:39:00.000-04:00

The Palestinian Authority made its first open statement Monday expressing support for US democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Your moment of Zen

2004-10-12T23:09:00.000-04:00

John Edwards yesterday: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Update: Chait

2004-10-12T19:41:00.000-04:00

Me: I stopped there because I actually believe the first theory. I think there is something inherent to the Democratic Party in the last 20 years that makes flip-floppers more likely to get nominated. It has something to do with the fact that the national party -- i.e. it's major donors, civil rights groups, Hollywood, New York media etc -- are far more left wing than rank-and-file Democrats. Chait himself has written about how affirmative action is very unpopular in America but elite Democrats love it (and elite Republicans are terrified of dealing with it). Also, the Democratic Party is much more coalitional. These and other forces contribute to the need for these Dems to play a double game. For example, once Gore became a "national Democrat" it became that much harder to be a Southern Democrat. That's why he lost Tennessee. Bill Clinton was much better at playing both sides -- and I doubt even Chait would say that Clinton was a man of granite convictions. But Clinton's I agreed with the minority but would have voted with the majority schtick was a perfect distillation of how a creature of the modern Democratic Party was trying very hard to suck up to two different constituencies simultaneously.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_10_10_corner-archive.asp#042267

Potpourri

2004-10-12T19:36:00.000-04:00

And in this week's cover story, Jonathan Chait from TNR sheds some new light on the “flip flop” lie; It’s the only thing the Republicans know how to do during an election. It’s what they said about Clinton (remember the “waffler”?) It’s what they said about Gore.
And if history is any precedent, maybe a “waffler” (someone who can change their mind, depending on new and relevant insights) will lead to another eight years of prosperity and security.

It couldn't be that the National Party is so far off the cliff of Leftism that only flip-floppers can win because they're the ones who can knit together centrists and the insane, no...

As for prosperity and security, I point to (1) Pets.com

and

(2) the USS Cole.

"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."

2004-09-30T03:21:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The House committee hearing began as a serious discussion about the coming elections in Afghanistan. It ended in insults, so partisan and personal that the committee chairman expressed relief upon adjournment.

The mood seemed to change when Representative Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, seized on President Bush's declaration in Ohio last week that "as a result of the United States military, the Taliban is no longer in existence."

So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"

Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished.

The reply did not entirely satisfy Mr. Menendez, who said, "I think we have to stop sugar-coating the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan and in our other conflicts and be honest with the American people."

Mr. Armitage did not respond directly to Mr. Menendez's "sugar-coating" metaphor, choosing instead to use one of his own. "The Taliban is very much running from hidey hole to hidey hole," he said.

Moments later, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, opined that "nitpicking the president of the United States' words is not really constructive in this type of situation." Mr. Rohrabacher said Mr. Bush had driven the Taliban out instead of unwisely tolerating it, as he said President Bill Clinton had.

A bit later, emotions warmed even more as Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, asserted that Mr. Bush had misled the American people by taking the country to war against Iraq ("It wasn't difficult, because many people have a difficult time getting the details straight"), while the main mission was still Afghanistan.

"And I have never seen such a misuse of our power," Mr. Payne observed.

That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.

Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.

Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."

The two lawmakers interrupted each other a few more times, until Mr. Ackerman said, "What's obvious, Mr. Chairman, is that you are a rather vicious partisan."

"Now you're really getting personal," Mr. Hyde observed.

"Well," Mr. Ackerman countered, "I think that willful ignorance is kind of personal also, Mr. Chairman."

"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."

"I know that," Mr. Ackerman said, "and I'm glad that you've memorized that." He went on to say that Mr. Hyde's insults notwithstanding, he had never called the president a liar...

Revenge

2004-09-11T16:55:00.000-04:00

I swear to God that I shall never forget and I shall never forgive. They will pay dearly for their foolish pride.

Update: Dan of ProgressiveDecision suggets it is OK to forgive them as they die. I am not sure if I am willing to compromise. Let's revisit when they are dead.

Inkblot Test

2004-08-30T14:01:00.001-04:00

What do you see?

Hat tip: Charles Johnson

Inkblot Test

2004-08-30T14:01:00.000-04:00

What do you see?

Hat tip: Charles Johnson

As per Teddy (Kelly)

2004-08-25T02:58:00.000-04:00

The weightlifting competition I saw was the women's 63 kg class. I'm not sure whether this means the actual women weighed 63 kg or the weights they lifted weighed 63 kg. Or possibly the temperature in the weightlifting hall was 63 kg. There's no way to know for sure without finding out what a ''kg'' is, and my belief, as an American, is that if I have to start understanding the metric system, then the terrorists have won.

They just lost my vote

2004-08-24T15:01:00.000-04:00

Most scientists believe that embryonic stem cells hold the greatest medical promise. Just as a tiny embryo can develop into a baby, with all its exquisitely specialized organs and parts, so embryonic stem cells can become virtually any type of human cell, with a facility seemingly greater than adult stem cells. But embryonic stem cell research is in its earliest stages,

And this is where right-wing idiots want to crush the research process. Backwards, reactionary neanderthals who have been trusted with the machinery of the State by unsuspecting idiots like myself who expected that the GOP would, I don't know, reduce the role of the State in dictating all matters of life and death.

Again, I guess I was wrong.

and no one knows whether these powerful cells can be directed in ways that are therapeutically useful.

Not like you do, you're a fucking copy editor. Let the scientists work on it.

Moreover, it is hard to say whether the scientific establishment, in its political quest to secure more funding and stave off regulation, is overstating the promise of embryonic stem cells and understating the promise of non-embryonic stem cells. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the scientific potential of embryo research, or the large stake the scientific community now has in its success.

You just tried to, you insoucient twit.

Nor can one deny the ethical problem this research poses.

Yes, forbid that we allow a concerted effort to save the Elderly and the infirmed at the expense of BABIES THAT WILL DIE ANYWAY.

Funny, for a party whose intellectual pedigree castigates the left for the left's unwillingness to confront reality...

When one speaks with leading embryonic stem cell researchers, it is disarming to discover that the destruction of human embryos is already normal. An embryo is just a "clump of cells," the scientists say, as "small as the period at the end of this sentence." But if embryos were just clumps of cells, scientists would not want them so badly.

That makes no sense at all.

The unique biological power of an embryo is inseparable from the kind of organism it is: an integrated, developing, genetically whole human creature in the earliest days of life. Three decades ago, scientists gained the power to initiate life in the laboratory; now they destroy it routinely, without fear and trembling.

It's not life. There, I said it. Let's just look at the criterion required for an organism to be living:

(1) Living beings are systems that have three simultaneous features: they are self-supported, they reproduce themselves and they evolve through interaction with the environment.
(2) Life is a chemical system able to replicate itself through autocatalysis and to make mistakes that gradually increase the efficiency of the autocatalysis.
(3) Living beings are protein-made bodies formed by one or more cells that communicate with the environment through information transfer carried out by electric impulses or chemical substances, and capable of morpholigical evolution and metabolism, growth and reproduction.
(4) Living beings are beings able to elaborate information in such a way that in the sequence "environmental stimulus - construction of knowledge - motor response", the possible results in terms of input cannot be mechanically predicted.

Which one is your group of cells?

The embryos needed for embryonic stem cell research can come from three sources: (1) They can be produced by in vitro fertilization (the union of egg and sperm in the laboratory) performed on behalf of infertile couples, who often produce more embryos than they actually implant to have children. (2) They can be produced by in vitro fertilization solely for the purposes of research. Or (3) they can be cloned--that is, produced using "somatic cell nuclear transfer," in which a person's DNA is inserted into an enucleated human egg. This is the technique that produced Dolly the sheep, and it is the first step on the way to reproductive human cloning.

Which one is objectionable?

So it seems Democrats are now poised to cross yet another ethical and political boundary: federal funding for the creation, study, and destruction of cloned human embryos. After all, if cloned embryos are necessary to provide stem cells tailor-made for the individual, and if stem cell research can succeed only with federal funding, then the day has come for a national project of cloned embryo research. The ideology of stem cells has made the Democrats the party of cloning. And like all true believers, they believe inconvenient facts can be ignored and that history is on their side.

And in the process, they pick up my vote. Now, copy-editor, tell me which inconvenient facts they are ignoring and disprove that history is on their side. Are you really willing to gamble against human ingenuity and advanced biotechnology?

...

If Kerry wins, the stem cell debate will be over, at least politically. He will reverse the three-year-old Bush policy of limiting federal funding to certain existing embryonic stem cell lines, and he will work to overturn the eight-year-old Dickey Amendment prohibiting federal funding for any research that directly involves the destruction of human embryos. He will begin a national project of embryo creation and destruction, enshrining it in American national policy.

That right there might be the most compelling reason for a man like me to vote for John Forbes Thorne Kerry.

...

Perhaps this is the direction America is heading already--toward the normalization of the radical in biotechnology, and toward the loss of all qualms about using human embryos as research materials. Or perhaps, years from now, the embryo destruction project will be another embarrassing wart on American history--a moral error, corrected by those who follow us. But it is a distraction to look too far into the future, with either excessive despair or excessive optimism. Today's election is what matters now, and John Kerry has given America a clear choice: the party of cloning or the party of moral limits.

Embarassing wart and moral error. When President Kerry is sworn in, you ignorant and backwards hicks can ponder long and fucking hard at the costs of being aligned against technology.

I said to my Comrade on here earlier that the Conservatives are generally the Party opposed to technology (e.g. Kass and Fukayama) but that there was a unique chance to turn the corner. I was wrong.

Eric Cohen is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the editor of the New Atlantis.
No BS in Biology, Chemistry, any of the relevant fields? But he can push paper...good for that fucktard.

Damning

2004-08-20T20:42:00.000-04:00

http://www.readmylipz.com/swiftboat.cfm

Tomorrow's News Headline

2004-08-19T18:16:00.000-04:00

A moment of silence for Muqtada al-Sad...that's enough.

Now here's something

2004-08-13T03:12:00.000-04:00

It's raining men, Hallelujah, it's raining men...Amen!

Discuss.

Blasts from the Past...

2004-08-11T15:54:00.000-04:00

I was looking through old links that I saved on my computer because I thought they'd be interesting to read again in the near future... and the following three articles are worth re-reading right now:

Sometimes, a War Saves People: Jose Ramos-Horta, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996, defends the war in Iraq as the right thing to do. John F. Kerry, who earned three Purple Hearts for wounds that he didn't even have to be hospitalized for, attacks the war in Iraq as the wrong thing.

Roadside Sarin: This happened a while ago, but don't let it fade from memory: we have found WMD in Iraq. Now, where's the rest of it?

Saddam's Files: Looks like there's evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda after all.

Where did the 4 trillion dollars go?

2004-08-11T15:03:00.000-04:00

Let's ask Clinton. Look here:

A good slogan

2004-08-09T12:17:00.000-04:00

"Since the Democrats have taken the themes of a safer, more secure America, that leaves the Republicans with a tax free, less gay America. Signing off after four days I'll never get back, I'm Stephen Colbert." - Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show.

The rebuttal:

2004-08-08T12:04:00.000-04:00

It's not so much what Zakariya Zubeidi, the fugitive leader of the West Bank Aksa Martyrs Brigades, says, but how he says it. Zubeidi speaks in the vacant tones of a ghost. ... If anyone embodies the intifada on the eve of its fourth anniversary, it is Zubeidi. The 28-year-old Aksa chief boasts a pedigree of martyrdom: Zubeidi's mother was shot dead in the battle of Jenin, as was one of his brothers. Two other brothers are in Israeli prisons. His father died of a skin cancer that the family says went untreated while he served a prison term for political activism against Israel during the first intifada. "The intifada is in its death throes. These are the final stages – this I can confirm," he said on Wednesday.

It appears evident, by the confluence of events, that the New Republic is right.

Hat tip: Belmont Club. I implore that our readership, in a bipartisan manner, read this man. His analysis is amazingly deep and very accurate.

One thing is for sure

2004-08-06T21:02:00.000-04:00

Aaron McGruder makes the compelling case to reelect the President.

The only thing we have to fear

2004-08-06T13:25:00.000-04:00

Is Four More Years of George W Bush.

Oh really?

God, damn this man

2004-08-06T02:44:00.000-04:00

This man has done enough, now strike him down

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

What a lovely letter...

2004-07-31T12:38:00.000-04:00

What a lovely letter... let us fisk it!

The RNC is happening in 33 days,
Wow, you can actually count that far?
and I've talked to a lot of you about going down to NYC,
9/11 happened there, did you forget? You remember the 2000 election quite well, but do you remember 9/11?
joining the protests,
Did you run out and protest Al Qaeda when they slammed planes into our office buildings and vaporized 3000 people?
making or voices heard,
Are you capable of proofreading?
and basically stirring shit up.
Please wash your hands afterwards.
The Bush administration seems
Seems? You're insinuating because you have no solid facts. You've got no choice but to use weasel words like "seems."
to be actively hostile towards democracy,
Yeah, that's why he brought democracy to 50 million people on the other side of the planet -- or do those 50 million people mean nothing to you?
towards our basic freedoms,
Yes, of course, he's trampling over our basic freedoms. That's why we're now living in a police state, right?
and toward what America has meant since it was founded.
Whereas the flip-flopper John F. Kerry and the rich trial lawyer John Edwards perfectly embody the American tradition....
They walked all over our votes in 2000,
Yes, the vast right-wing conspiracy fixed the national elections... go on thinking that.
they disregarded and dismantled 4th amendment protections,
You're referring to PATRIOT, right? Notice how many terrorist attacks we've had on American soil since PATRIOT... that's right: none.
they've failed us on national security,
Yup, that's why we're having terrorist attacks on American soil, day after day...
and now they're talking of possibly postponing our elections?!?!?
No, actually, you're the one who's talking about that.
I'm fucking sick of it,
You took the words right outta my mouth.
and I'm fucking sick of them thinking they can silence America's conscience
The only people who are being silenced are terrorists. If you think America's conscience is the same thing as Al Qaeda, well then I guess you're right.
with bullshit like "free speech" zones and empty terrorist warnings.
Empty terrorist warnings? You've actually got access to our nation's top-secret intelligence reports on a daily basis? No you don't. You're pulling that clever turn of phrase, "empty terrorist warnings," out of your ass.
I want my fucking country back
Dude, where's my country?
before I don't have one,
You could always move to Canada... or France....
and protesting, while not direct action,
So what is direct action? Joining the Taliban?
will let everyone else in America know how we feel,
Did you ever get that feeling that no one cares? That you're nothing more than the whispering winds of irrelevancy?
and make them ask themselves how they feel.
Inflation is low, unemployment is low, the economy is good, the nation and the world is much safer than it was on 9/10/01... I don't know about you, but I feel pretty damn good.
So, if you've gotten this far in my email, you're probably not a Bush supporter.
You know what they say: when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. Except in this case, you're the jackass, I'm the elephant.
You probably want him to hear America stand up against him, and to get him out of office as much as I do.
See: French Revolution, 1789, guillotine, beheadings.
And you probably want to come down to NYC to protest against what he has done in our names as much as I do.
Mmmh hmmm... sure... we're all as psycho as you.
Email me back if you want in.
Sure you're ready to handle the unexpected deluge of emails?
The RNC takes place August 29-September 2.
Same time as the Yale freshmen orientation and the first two days of classes. We've got our priorities straight, haven't we?
You won't be missing classes, but you will be back in New Haven.
Just like those "missing" WMD....
I want to get as many people down to New York as possible,
Swing by Ground Zero while you're in NY and inhale the air there. It contains the vaporized bodies of 3000 people killed due to your failed policies of national security.
and I'm going to try to coordinate events, housing, travel, etc.
Try. We'll be right here, cheering you on.
I'd really appreciate anyone willing to help with this, anyone who has a car, or a place to stay, or any suggestions or ideas.
People like you have ideas besides new ways of bashing Bush? Who'd've thunk it?
Again, let me know if you want in. Hope your summer's going well. For all you out on the campaign trail, keep up the good work.
Cheers!

The New McCarthy

2004-07-27T09:44:00.000-04:00

Mr. Scott Simon, host of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, explains how Michael Moore is "more McCarthy than Murrow."

Michael Moore has won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and may win an Oscar for the kind of work that got Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly fired.

Trying to track the unproven innuendoes and conspiracies in a Michael Moore film or book is as futile as trying to count the flatulence jokes in one by Adam Sandler. Some journalists and critics have acted as if his wrenching of facts is no more serious than a movie continuity problem, like showing a 1963 Chevy in 1956 Santa Monica.

A documentary film doesn't have to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. But it ought to make an attempt to be accurate. It can certainly be pointed and opinionated. But it should not knowingly misrepresent the truth. Much of Michael Moore's films and books, however entertaining to his fans and enraging to his critics, seems to regard facts as mere nuisances to the story he wants to tell.

Back in 1991 that sharpest of film critics, the New Yorker's Pauline Kael, blunted some of the raves for Mr. Moore's "Roger and Me" by pointing out how the film misrepresented many facts about plant closings in Flint, Mich., and caricatured people it purported to feel for. "The film I saw was shallow and facetious," said Kael, "a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing."

His methods remain unrefined in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Mr. Moore ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't. As Kael observed back then, Mr. Moore's method is no more high-minded than "the work of a slick ad exec."

The main premise of Mr. Moore's recent work is that both Presidents Bush have been what amounts to Manchurian Candidates of the Saudi royal family. Mr. Moore suggests (he depends so much on innuendo that a simple, declarative verb like "says" is usually impossible) the Saudi government, having soured on their pawns for unstated reasons, launched the attacks of Sept. 11.

"What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed onto a suicide mission?" Moore asks in the best-selling "Dude, Where's My Country?" "What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family?" Central to Mr. Moore's indictment of the current President Bush is his charge that the U.S. government secretly assisted the evacuation of bin Laden family members from the U.S. in the hours following the Sept. 11 attacks, when all other flights nationwide were grounded. He supports this with grainy images of indecipherable documents.

But on our show on Saturday, Richard Clarke, the government's former counter-terrorism adviser and no apologist for the Bush administration, told us that he had authorized those flights, but only after air travel had been restored and all the Saudis had been questioned. "I think Moore's making a mountain of a molehill," he said. Moreover, said Mr. Clarke, "He never interviewed me." Instead, Mr. Moore had simply lifted a clip from an ABC interview. Perhaps Mr. Moore just didn't want to get an answer that he didn't want to hear. (See how useful innuendoes can be?)

In what is perhaps the most wrenching scene in the film, an Iraqi woman is shown wailing amid the rubble caused by a bomb that killed members of her family. I do not doubt her account, or her sorrow. I have interviewed Iraqis about U.S. bombs that killed civilians. People who agree to wars should see the human damage bombs can do.

But reporters who were taken around to see the sites of civilian deaths during the bombing of Baghdad also observed that some of those errant bombs were fired by Iraqi anti-aircraft crews. Mr. Moore doesn't let the audience know when and where this bomb was dropped, or otherwise try to identify the culprit of the tragedy.

Mr. Moore tries hard to identify himself with U.S. troops and their concerns. But he spends an awful lot of effort depicting them as dupes and brutes. At one point in "Fahrenheit 9/11," someone off-camera prods a U.S. soldier into singing a favorite hip-hop song with profane lyrics. Mr. Moore then runs the soldier's voice over combat footage, to make it seem as if the soldier were insensitively singing along with the destruction.

In another scene, U.S. soldiers make savage jokes about the awkward effects of rigor mortis on one part of the corpse of an Iraqi soldier. I do not doubt the authenticity of those pictures. But I also have no particular reason to trust it. A few basic details, like where and when the video was shot, are considered traditional reporting techniques (especially after the front-page photos of British soldiers brutalizing Iraqi prisoners turned out to be frauds). A few other basic facts might have informed the audience. Was the Iraqi killed in battle? By a suicide bomb? Moore says the U.S. soldiers are good boys turned coarse in an immoral war. But I have also heard those kind of ugly and anxious jokes about corpses from overstressed emergency room physicians.

In the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote that, "Viewers may come away from Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true," and that he "uses association and innuendo to create false impressions." Try to imagine those phrases on a marquee. But that is his rave review! He lauds "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "appeal to working-class Americans." Do we really want to believe that only innuendo, untruths, and conspiracy theories can reach working-class Americans?

Governments of both parties have assuaged Saudi interests for more than 50 years. (I wonder if Mr. Moore grasps how much the jobs of auto workers in Flint depended on cheap oil.) Sound questions about the course, costs, and grounds for the war in Iraq have been raised by voices across the political spectrum.

But when 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean has to take a minute at a press conference, as he did last Thursday, to knock down a proven falsehood like the secret flights of the bin Laden family, you wonder if those who urge people to see Moore's film are informing or contaminating the debate. I see more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore. No matter how hot a blowtorch burns, it doesn't shed much light.

A Request

2004-07-24T01:46:00.000-04:00

Dan S., if you get this, can you get me the article from the most recent TNR about Bob Shrum? I don't know if you're registered but here's the URL:

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20040802&s=foer080204

Thank you for any help.

The Democrats are dead -- long live the Republicans!

2004-07-23T18:21:00.000-04:00

Mahmoud, the Weasel requested that I post the following on his behalf, as he's away for a couple of days:

On the eve of the Democratic convention, Matt Bai delivers a Sunday New York Times Magazine must-read on the demise of the Democratic party and those wealthy individuals looking far beyond November investing in the future of the party.

Bai explores the electoral trends for the Democrats in recent decades and declares the party all but dead.

Here's a sneak preview of what will be tucked inside your Sunday New York Times: "As the old union bosses and factional leaders who dominated the Democratic Party in the 20th century file into the FleetCenter this week, waving signs and hooting for their heroes, be sure to take a long, last look. The Democratic Party of the machine age, so long dominant in American politics, could be holding its own Irish wake near Boston's North End. The power is already shifting -- not just within the party, but away from it altogether."

TOP KERRY ADVISOR SUBJECT OF ESPIONAGE PROBE

2004-07-20T16:32:00.000-04:00

http://news.google.com/news?q=Sandy+Berger&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&sa=N&tab=nn

WASHINGTON -- Sandy Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

Well, isn't that convenient?

New links!

2004-07-20T11:15:00.000-04:00

While wandering through the blogosphere, I happened upon the fourth rail, from where I decided to shamelessly steal a small selection of links to include in our links menu:

PDWatch: Day 6

2004-07-20T09:22:00.000-04:00

As I've been extremely busy the past few days, I totally forgot about PDWatch. But this damning editorial reminded me of the issue...

Today is the sixth day of the PDWatch, set up to remind ProgressiveDecision that they must apologize for being part of the crowd that lied to us about the Yellowcake Con.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for...

2004-07-16T22:57:00.000-04:00

In 1995, Kerry was one of 29 senators who voted against lifting an arms embargo on Bosnia. He argued the congressional action was unacceptably unilateral and had not been coordinated with European allies. Kerry, in this instance, supported the view of the Clinton administration, but he did not automatically provide his support, according to a White House official involved in legislative strategy on the vote.

While I disagreed with the Yugoslav campaigns on reasons of inconsistency with American Security interests, I respected the efforts of the Clinton Administration to stop another ethnic cleansing in Europe along Europe's sectarian fault lines. However, this...gives alot of insight as to what a vote for Kerry is really about:

A vote for Kerry is a vote for unsound isolationism. Thank you.

Bad Moore!

2004-07-16T08:59:00.000-04:00

Mr. Bradbury [author of Fahrenheit 451] has recently denounced Michael Moore for expropriating his title without asking. (source)

Tax Fraud Klaims Kerry _on_ubine

2004-07-16T04:16:00.000-04:00

The tax fraud surrounding Teresa Heinz-Kerry continues to grow...

~~If John Kerry wins the presidency,~~ his household will be the richest ever to occupy the White House. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, controls a vast fortune estimated by a Los Angeles Times study to fall somewhere between $900 million to $3.2 billion. Through a series of entirely legal maneuvers, Kerry is attempting to conceal from American voters the full extent of his wife's wealth and her corporate holdings — and the fact that she apparently manages to pay a remarkably small amount of taxes.

Let's put this in terms that people of less extreme wealth can relate to. If you had $100,000 invested last year and your investment income was only $500 — the same percentage as Mrs. Kerry's income — then something would be very much out of whack.

We can't know exactly what is out of whack with Mrs. Kerry's income, if anything, because she and her husband have always chosen to file separate tax returns. Mrs. Kerry's separate returns have never been made part of the public record.

Do you notice something odd?

2004-07-16T00:12:00.000-04:00

On June 5, 2005 the draft machine that has been kept in storage since 1973

Ended when Nixon/Ford was President.

is being dusted off and possibly switched on if 2 bills in the House and the Senate pass.

51-48-1, that is the Republican majority in the Senate. I think the House majority is by 20. That means two things: one, this stunt is destined to die. And two...read below.

These bills were proposed in January of 2003 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
THE DEMOCRAT FROM NEW YORK
and Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
THE DEMOCRAT FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
and will allow women to be drafted, with no deferments.

Proving once more that the Democrats are the Party of Slavery.

Update: Thanks to Dan Kimerling: "and i will tell you that in the house there are 222 rep's, 211 dem's and 1 independnet"

The margin is 11, not 20, but I am including Texas redistricting.

PDWatch: Day 1

2004-07-15T09:44:00.000-04:00

Today is the first day of the PDWatch, set up to remind ProgressiveDecision that they must apologize for being part of the crowd that lied to us about the Yellowcake Con.

The Yellowcake Con

2004-07-15T09:40:00.000-04:00

The Wilson-Plame "scandal" was political pulp fiction.

So now the British government has published its own inquiry into the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq, with equally devastating implications for the credibility of the Bush-Blair "lied" crowd. Like last week's 511-page document from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the exhaustive British study found some flawed intelligence but no evidence of "deliberate distortion." Inquiry leader Lord Butler told reporters that Prime Minister Tony Blair had "acted in good faith."

What's more, Lord Butler was not ready to dismiss Saddam Hussein as a threat merely because no large "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction have been found. The report concludes that Saddam probably intended to pursue his banned programs, including the nuclear one, if and when U.N. sanctions were lifted; that research, development and procurement continued so WMD capabilities could be sustained; and that he was pursuing the development of WMD delivery systems--missiles--of longer range than the U.N. permitted.

But the part that may prove most salient in the U.S. is that, like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

We're awaiting apologies from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, and all those who championed him....

...

All of this matters because Mr. Wilson's disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush's credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a "liar," regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are.

And those liars owe their audience an apology.... Thus, I am starting the PDWatch: every day, until ProgressiveDecision admits on their blog that they lied about the facts vis-a-vis the Yellowcake Con, I will be posting daily reminders that the folks at ProgressiveDecision are liars.

Your moment of Zen

2004-07-14T16:49:00.000-04:00

Twenty-eight-year-old David Walker of South Yorkshire, England, "was arguing with a friend at a pub" after drinking 15 pints of beer, Reuters reports. Walker "went home to get his sawed-off shotgun, which he jammed into his trousers":

But as he walked back to the pub, the gun went off, blasting pellets into his testicles. Doctors later removed what remained of his testicles during emergency surgery.

Believe it or not, that wasn't the end of Walker's misfortune. On Tuesday a court sentenced him to five years behind bars for possessing an illegal firearm. Some might sneer at his stupidity, but we'd like to salute him for doing his part, at great personal cost, to improve the gene pool.

Hat tip: Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today. Subscribe Today!

The tyranny of crying wolf

2004-07-14T02:21:00.000-04:00

On the right, particularly the far right libertarians, there is a propensity to cry wolf - that every action of the State is, inevitably, moving us closer to the Road to Serfdom.

While it is comforting to generalize all actions of the State, there is a difference between a massively bloated farm bill and the invasion of the Ukraine for their wheat fields.

Libertarians, take notice next time you call a Conservative a fascist-in-training.

Update: This is why the Libertarians are more of a cult than a political party, always bound to lose.

Even a dead cat will bounce if thrown from a sufficiently high roof...

2004-07-13T14:00:00.000-04:00

The selection of John Edwards as John Kerry's running mate was supposed to put North Carolina in play for the Democrats, or at the very least, cause President Bush to have to spend more time and resources to secure the state. But if the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll is to be believed, the Bush-Cheney campaign still has quite the advantage in the state. In a two-way race, Bush-Cheney leads Kerry-Edwards 51%-44% among registered voters, and 56%-41% among likely voters. When Nader is thrown into the mix, the margin among registered voters becomes 49%-43%-4% favoring Bush-Cheney, and 54%-39%-4% among likely voters favoring the incumbents.

Hat tip: Pejman at Redstate

Your moment of Zen

2004-07-12T16:20:00.000-04:00

In re: Edwards' experience, Kerry said this: "Does [Edwards] have as much experience as me? No. But I am running for president; he's running for vice president."

On gay marriage — is this an answer or not? "'Let's be very firm about it. Both John and I believe firmly and absolutely that marriage is between a man and a woman,' Kerry said. 'But we also believe that you don't play with the Constitution of the United States for political purposes and amend the Bill of Rights when you don't need to when states are adequately addressing this issue.'"

"Kerry, who recently said he agrees with the Roman Catholic Church that life begins at conception, said he disagrees with his church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Edwards twice did not respond when asked if he, too, believes life begins at conception."

Hat tip: ABCNews the Note.

A Local Name on the National News

2004-07-12T12:00:00.000-04:00

MSNBC has an exclusive report on Election Day Worries... and while the article itself is quite interesting, I was particularly intrigued by the mention of DeForest B. Soaries Jr., who is now the chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Reverend "Buster" Soaries ran for Representative (NJ, 12th district) against Rush Holt two years ago... and unfortunately lost.

Plamegate: Another DEMOCRATIC Scandal

2004-07-12T09:30:00.000-04:00

Looks like Plamegate is another Democratic scandal:

In fact, the [bipartisan Senate] report shows that one of the first allegations of false intelligence was itself a distortion: Mr. Bush's allegedly misleading claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had been seeking uranium ore from Africa. The Senate report notes that Presidential accuser and former CIA consultant Joe Wilson returned from his trip to Africa with no information that cast serious doubt on such a claim; and that, contrary to Mr. Wilson's public claims, his wife (a CIA employee) was involved in helping arrange his mission.

...

"When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the '16 words' or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger Uranium reporting," the report says. In short, Joe Wilson is a partisan fraud whose trip disproved nothing, and what CIA doubts there were on Niger weren't shared with the White House.

There's more:

"The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

So reads Conclusion 83 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda. So it appears that some of the claims about WMD used by the Bush Administration and others to argue for war in Iraq were mistaken because they were based on erroneous information provided by the CIA.

A few apologies would seem to be in order. Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a President. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.

Or to put it more directly, if President Bush was "lying" about WMD, then so was Mr. Rockefeller when he relied on CIA evidence to claim in October 2002 that Saddam Hussein's weapons "pose a very real threat to America." Also lying at the time were John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and so on.

So how was dinner, Ms. Lincoln?

2004-07-11T15:28:00.000-04:00

July 11, 2004
A dinner...
Our regressive friend wrote three days ago:

Well, we got an invitation to the white house for one of Bush's dinners. Not sure if I'm allowed to go to it but hopefully I can. Just had to make you guys jealous. :)

Posted by Kansas

Well, I was invited to the same dinner,

Will wonders never cease?

probably a mass invite,

Precisely the Republican strategy - invite absolutely everyone, create a massive logistics nightmare and then with the inexorable cancellations, run over-budget! Brilliant, Holmes, how do you do it?

to find tax-avoiding richies

You mean like Edwards (estimated worth 40 million dollars) or John Kerry (estimated worth 600 million dollars)? Hypocrite.

from Kansas

A solid Republican state.

who would donate the max 2,000 for a 300,000 tax-break at our expense.

Our expense who? What tax bracket are you in, Dan? You're amongst the wealthiest of the wealthy, you should watch what you say ... or at least, back it up by giving away your rich tax cuts.

Well they got me, the tax loving richie, who wrote back, scribbled on their reply card (and why shouldn't I, if they're willing to pay the buiseness reply) , "YOU CAN EAT MY FAT ASS FOR DESSERT, JOHN KERRY '04, BITCHES",

Wow, that's real political discourse there...dear God, do you think before things spew from your ass or are you mindlessly following al-Franken's line?

Just to make you jealous. :(

Of clinical dementia.

Posted by Dan at 12:58 AM | Dan's Website | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Awsome!! I might go just so I could get close to Bush and moon him with Kerry 04 written on my ass
And when the Secret Service shoots you...
Posted by Ben (Website) at July 11, 2004 11:11 AM
nah, don't do that, you'd waste 2000 big ones. (but there would be immense satisfaction...)
It's OK, just ask Clinton Pollster Dick Morris about immense satisfaction and 2000 big ones...
Posted by Dan (Website) at July 11, 2004 12:40 PM

Does Kerry still consider Arafat to be a statesman?

2004-07-11T02:11:00.000-04:00

The Catholic Church condemned anti-Zionism as a cover for anti-Semitism by means of a joint statement issued by a forum of Catholic-Jewish intellectuals this week. The announcement was made at a gathering of religious, academic and other leading Jewish and Catholic figures in Buenos Aires. "We oppose anti-Semitism in any way and form, including anti-Zionism that has become of late a manifestation of anti-Semitism," the statement said. This is the first time that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have been equated by the Catholic Church. The statement also includes a stern condemnation of terrorism, particularly terror in the name of faith. "Terror is a sin against man and against God. Fundamentalist terrorism in the name of God has no justification and cannot be justified."

Hat tip: Rantburg, LGF

Bush dinner at the White House

2004-07-08T22:18:00.000-04:00

Well, we got an invitation to the white house for one of Bush's dinners. Not sure if I'm allowed to go to it but hopefully I can. Just had to make you guys jealous. :)

New site design!

2004-07-08T17:18:00.000-04:00

Those who frequent this site may well notice a new site design in place here at the Regressive Decision! Hope you like it! :-)

Senator Sizzle

2004-07-07T09:35:00.000-04:00

Why did Kerry pick Edwards? Not for his experience and depth.

"As an articulate Southerner, Mr. Edwards also reminds many nostalgic Democrats/reporters of Bill Clinton without the character flaws.

"But to continue that comparison, Mr. Edwards is also Mr. Clinton without the experience and depth. By the time he ran for national office, Mr. Clinton could drill down several levels into education, welfare, trade and other policy debates. Mr. Edwards is known around the Senate as a smooth talker of no particular expertise. He is smart enough to quickly grasp talking points, but the doubt is whether he knows enough to be an asset in White House counsels if the ticket is elected.

"Among recent Vice Presidential candidates, Mr. Edwards compares in experience to Geraldine Ferraro (1984) and Spiro Agnew (1968) but knows much less about defense than Dan Quayle (1988). Compared to Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt or Dick Cheney, Mr. Edwards will require on-the-job training, especially in foreign policy. In a year when national security is once more at the top of voter concerns, this strikes us as a mistake in judgment by Mr. Kerry, and perhaps also a political error.

...

"If a ticket composed of a rich trial lawyer and a rich Senator who married the Heinz fortune can make this faux populism sound credible, they're bound to win. If they can't, Mr. Kerry may regret he chose sizzle in a year when the voters are looking for substance."

Kerry-Edwards 2004: Make America Nice.

Discuss

2004-07-06T23:23:00.000-04:00

LOKESH: do u think kerry blew the election
r00troute: No.
r00troute: No, I think Kerry will bounce for a while from this.
LOKESH: really
r00troute: Yes
r00troute: New blood, constant focus
LOKESH: yeah thats what i was saying to my uncle, but all i hear from tv and papers is that kerry blew it

Lila, uninterrupted

2004-07-05T14:45:00.000-04:00

From the previous post. Go ahead, Dan, tell me how you feel about Lila now.

Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War. But there are many mothers and relatives of US soldiers, alive and dead, who served there who don’t agree with her. Don’t look for them in this agit-prop “film.”

Schlussel.

Fahrenheit wallows in pity for Mrs. Lipscomb. “I was tired of seeing people like Mrs. Lipscomb suffer,” he claims. Yet Moore’s website takes a different view:

I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Michael Moore, “Heads Up... from Michael Moore,” MichaelMoore.com, April 14, 2004

Summer Reading

2004-07-05T14:37:00.000-04:00

The tally of errors, omissions and lies in Farenheit 9/11.

Overheard yet not overlooked

2004-07-05T03:08:00.000-04:00

Go Graham! Some words from my pal: "If our citizens have certain inalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the difference between what is the goal for America and the foundational framework to effectuate such ends.

...How come nearly 900 have lost those rights in an alien country,

Now now, you stupid American - Iraq isn't alien. It's right over there.

for an unjustified conflict,

Unjustified? How so? Or is it one of those thought provoking, yet meaningless pleonasms?

on the account of an ungrateful people?"

It's ok, those A-rabs deserve what they get, right?

Right?

Happy Fourth of July

2004-07-04T22:16:00.000-04:00

May God bless and keep the United States of America. May our gift of liberty, both political and economic, liberate the world.

Catah

2004-07-02T01:51:00.000-04:00

Carter's meddling in Central America led to a civil war that killed 40,000 people, left 100,000 homeless, and installed a Soviet-supported totalitarian government that for ten years was a source of unrest in the region. On November 4, 1979, a group of Khomeini's progressive moderates stormed the embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for the next fourteen months. The regime that replaced the disposed shah became a major backer of the fundamentalist terrorist movement. As a reward for his efforts to wind down the arms race, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan--astounding the president, who nonetheless told a group of moderate Democrats that current events would do nothing to alter his policies. Carter had done more in three years to weaken the country and destabilize the world than all the other presidents since the Cold War had started. It was Senator Moynihan who gave him his epitaph: "Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has adopted our enemies' view of the world."

Discuss.

Reflect on this

2004-07-02T00:41:00.000-04:00

A Winning Combination
From “Notes & Asides”

By William F. Buckley Jr.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appeared in the "Notes & Asides" section of the May 1, 1981, issue of National Review.

Dear Mrs. Wells:

I had a most engaging letter from Barnaby Conrad (III), the gist of which is that I must give you a recipe for your new book. I have been reluctant to do so not so much from any fear for my reputation, but for yours, since no red-blooded American would buy a book including a recipe by me without demanding his money back. The fact of it is that I am 55 years old, that I cooked feverishly during two summers, age 14 and 15, that I made a considerable sum of money from my cooking — something on the order of $24 or $25 per summer. I produced a most delicious fudge, which I sold via an old ladies' institution in Sharon, Connecticut at 65 cents per pound (with nuts, 75 cents). My father was so unkind as to point out, somewhere along the line, that the economic model after which I had fashioned my enterprise was unrealistic inasmuch as I used exclusively ingredients provided gratis by my father's kitchen. Anyway (for a double portion): 11/2 cups of milk, 4 squares of Baker's chocolate, 1/2 pound of butter, 2 cups of sugar. Stir until you see what looks like discrete globlets. Test these by dripping, by teaspoon, a drop or two. If they come down fragmented, you must leave the mixture under boil. If they come down whole, you are ready to lift the mess off the stove. (On no account should you pass by stage two from inattention, because the effect of this is a granular fudge.) At this moment, you should add a teaspoon of salt and, a minute or two later, two or three teaspoons of vanilla extract. The point of waiting this long is that you must not allow the vanilla to evaporate. If you are living in the post-industrial revolution you may submit the whole to a blender, adding nuts or not, according to market demands, always assuming you are not a supply-sider: in which case you should add the nuts malgré soi. The beating should continue until the stuff is very nearly cool, and only then pour it into a plate. Beyond that, I know only how to make a stew composed of ingredients from the Democratic platform, but that would be coprophagous.

Yours faithfully,
Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

IT'S NOT ALIVE

2004-07-01T17:51:00.000-04:00

Scans uncover secrets of the womb

Baby 'walking' in the womb
A new type of ultrasound scan has produced vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus "walking" in the womb.
The new images also show foetuses apparently yawning and rubbing its eyes.

The scans, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell at London's Create Health Clinic, are much more detailed than conventional ultrasound.

Professor Campbell has previously released images of unborn babies appearing to smile.

He has compiled a book of the images called Watch Me Grow.

Conventional ultrasound, usually offered to mothers at 12 and 20 weeks, produces 2D images of the developing foetus.

These are very useful for helping doctors to measure and assess the growth of the foetus, but convey very little information about behaviour.

Complex behaviour

More pictures of developing foetuses
Professor Campbell has perfected a technique which not only produces detailed 3D images, but records foetal movement in real time.

He says his work has been able to show for the first time that the unborn baby engages in complex behaviour from an early stage of its development.

Professor Campbell told the BBC: "This is a new science for understanding and mapping out the behaviour of the baby.

"Maybe in the future it will help us understand and diagnose genetic disease, maybe even conditions like cerebral palsy which puzzles the medical profession as to why it occurs."

The images have shown:

From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement

From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks

From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccuping, and sucking.
Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until six weeks after birth.

An hour long session using the new technology, which is not yet available on the NHS, costs £275.

Worth reading

2004-07-01T03:45:00.000-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16180-2004Jun29.html

Polarization and nastiness are not side effects. They are the game. You feel good about yourself because the other side is so fanatical, misguided, corrupt and dishonest. Because real differences between party programs have narrowed, remaining differences are exaggerated. Drab policy debates become sensational showdowns -- one side or the other is "destroying" the schools, the environment or the economy. Every investigation aims to expose the other side's depravity: One side's Whitewater becomes the other's Halliburton.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4853444.html

"My feelings haven't changed," said Brown, who lives in Apple Valley. "Being there was a great experience and now I'm excited for the Iraqis.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040630/COLUMNIST13/406300332

On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River, watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46 a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am more than insulted by this film. I am outraged. This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness. The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary."

http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/
gametheory/001448.html

Strategy: In classical game theory, players have strategy sets from which they choose particular strategies. In biology, species have startegy sets (genotypic variants), of which individuals inherit one or another variant (perhaps mutated), which they then play in their strategic interactions. This extends nicely to the treatment of culture in human society. We say that society has the strategy set (the set of alternative cultural forms) and individuals inherit or choose among them.

Equilibrium: In place of the Nash equilibrium, Maynard Smith and Price used the evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) concept. A strategy is evolutionary stabel if a whole population using that strategy cannot be invaded by a small group with a mutant genotype. Similarly, a cultural form is evolutionary stable if, upon being adopted by all members of a society (firm, family, etc.), no small group of individuals using an alternative cultural form can invade. We thus move from explaining the actions of individuals to modeling the difusion of forms of behavior (strategies) in society.

Player Interactions: In place of the one-shot and repeated games of classical game theory, Maynard Smith introduced the notion of the repeated, random paring of agents who play strategies based on their genome but not on the previous history of play.1

Click here

2004-07-01T02:05:00.000-04:00

If it seems like a Progressive Decision post, we understand.

Click here.

We're not mocking your European Army, Karthik

2004-06-27T18:27:00.000-04:00

Hat tip: Instapundit.

Of 1.4 million soldiers under Nato arms in October 2003, allies other than the US contributed all of 55,000. Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre. SACEUR General James Jones testified before Congress in March 2004 that only 3-4% (42 000, about two divisions - I'd bet mostly UK) of European forces were deployable for expeditions. Then there are the problems of interoperability: there is a recurring problem of coalition-wide secure communications which can be drawn on in operations. Allies other than the U.S. have next to no precision strike capabilities [The United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, Australia], although these are slowly improving. The US is generally the sole provider of electronic warfare (jamming and electronic intelligence) aircraft, as well as aircraft for surveillance and C3 (command, control, and communications). The US is also capable of much greater sortie rates than its allies.

Questions for Kerry

2004-06-27T03:12:00.000-04:00

Reprinted at length, edited for clarity. Thank you IMAO! Bolded are my favorites.

June 22, 2004
So, Do You Have Any Military Experience?
I got an e-mail from the John Kerry campaign titled "What would you ask John Kerry" saying how if I set up a house party, I could ask a question to John Kerry. So, I put it to you, my dear readers, to think of what would be the perfect question to ask him. I'll pick the best one, and the author of it gets to ask me a question (yes, I'm tired of Frank Answers™, so you only get to ask me questions by winning a contest).

So, what would you ask John Kerry?

Posted by Frank J. at June 22, 2004 11:38 AM | TrackBack

Comments
What is more Nuanced? Voting against something, then voting FOR it? Or Voting for something, and THEN voting against it?

Posted by: Evil Midnight Poster what Posts at Midnight on June 22, 2004 11:46 AM
To Sen Kerry:
Was the tossing of "your" Vietnam campaign medals over the White House fence a "wardrobe malfunction?"

Posted by: Cory on June 22, 2004 11:54 AM
So, Senator, how does four months of actual combat experience make you a better candidate than say, Lyndie England?

Posted by: Bob Owens on June 22, 2004 11:54 AM
Have you ever been to bohemian grove?

Posted by: Cb on June 22, 2004 11:56 AM
As I have passed the age of 40 I was wondering, Senator Kerry, how do you manage to stay so young looking?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 11:58 AM
Senator, why are you married to 'Tootsie'?

Posted by: DixieDarlin' on June 22, 2004 12:02 PM
Hey, Frenchie! Pull my finger?

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin on June 22, 2004 12:04 PM
Senator (*spit*), when will you stop hating your country?

Posted by: the markman on June 22, 2004 12:10 PM
Mr. Kerry, how can I get combat experience in Viet Nam?

Posted by: LibertyBob on June 22, 2004 12:16 PM
Senator, as the state of Massachusetts I was wondering if you would be returning your salary to me. Considering you've missed 78% of the votes here. I was also wondering if you would be stepping down as Senator once you accept the Democraptic nomination. Or mebbe you're just to haughty and french-looking for that?

Posted by: Massachusetts on June 22, 2004 12:16 PM
I would ask:
Did it hurt when they pulled the band-aids off your wounds in Vietnam?

Posted by: JusTalkin on June 22, 2004 12:26 PM
Mr. Heinz-Kerry,

You have said that as president, you would create 10 million new jobs for Americans. Does that mean American citizens, or North Americans is general? I mean, do you plan to create a bunch of jobs for us, or illegal aliens?

Posted by: Chris on June 22, 2004 12:30 PM
I loved your performance as Treebeard in LOTR: The Two Towers. Can I have your autograph?

Posted by: Sam on June 22, 2004 12:34 PM
Dear Kerry, there was a rumor that you served in Vietnam, as a anti-war protestor how do you face these accusations.

Posted by: Monster Kabasue on June 22, 2004 12:37 PM
Senator Kerry, just what are the 57 Heinz varieties?

Posted by: James on June 22, 2004 12:37 PM
What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? A European Swallow that is.

Posted by: Aric on June 22, 2004 12:50 PM
Senator Kerry, when is it appropriate to place the chafing dish directly on the dinner table?

Posted by: lance on June 22, 2004 12:51 PM
"Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?"

or

"Do you know the Muffin Man?"

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 12:54 PM
"Why the long face?" Yeah, I know. Okay, how about: "Is that Hunts Catsup on your collar?".

Posted by: jonag on June 22, 2004 12:58 PM
Mr. Kerry,

How long have you been a goober?

Posted by: Mr. Bubble on June 22, 2004 12:58 PM
In your appearance before the Senate in the 70's you stated as fact that you engaged in war crimes in Vietnam. If this was not true, then why should Americans elect someone who'd lie about that? Conversely, if it is true, then why would Americans elect a war criminal?

As a follow-up...since you approve of the U.S. being subject to the U.N....then will you present yourself to the ICC in the Hague to answer your war crime charges?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:01 PM
Does Jaques Chirac really talk in his sleep?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:02 PM
How much does Ter-ay-sah give you as a weekly allowance? Do you have to do chores for it?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:03 PM
If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? And, if you fell in the forest but no-one was around to hear, would anyone care?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:04 PM
Mr. Kerry, How do you reconcile the fact that you have testified before Congress that you were an accessory to war crimes during your time in Viet Nam yet you incessantly mention that you served there and use it as a source of pride when comparing yourself to the current president?

If you didn't have the moral conviction to stand up to war criminals, why should the American public believe you'll have the moral conviction to do what is right (not what is politically expedient or what focus groups/polls indicate) if you're elected president?

(OK, so that's 2 questions. Sue me...)

Posted by: A fine scotch on June 22, 2004 01:05 PM
What's that on your shirt?

Posted by: toothless redneck on June 22, 2004 01:08 PM
Senator Kerry, is it true that you are indeed the illegitimate son of Herman Munster & Gladys Kravitz?

And if I may follow up, will you enact forced famines like your mentor Joseph Stalin?

Posted by: FilthyMcNasty on June 22, 2004 01:09 PM
Senator Kerry, if you lose the 2004 Presidential Election, will you move to France to form a government-in-exile?

Posted by: Chris Marcellus on June 22, 2004 01:11 PM
Johnny, is Tear-ree-saw as big a biatch as ol' shrillary?

Posted by: peloperz on June 22, 2004 01:12 PM
Why is there air?

(thanks to Bill Cosby)

Will you be mandating Botox injections be covered by a National Health Plan???

Posted by: SteveLowe on June 22, 2004 01:13 PM
Senator Kerry, what kind of extras do you get when you spend $1,000 for a haircut? Lapdances, or just shampoo and conditioner?

Posted by: Cap'n Yoaz on June 22, 2004 01:14 PM
Has Theresa ever worn kneepads for Teddy??

Posted by: NationalEnquirer on June 22, 2004 01:15 PM
Senator Kerry, were you ever in Viet Nam?

Posted by: Cap'n Yoaz on June 22, 2004 01:16 PM
Have you now, or ever been, a member of the Ho Chi Minh School of Democracy?

Posted by: LancelotLink on June 22, 2004 01:17 PM
Senator Kerry, does your butler have a butler?

Posted by: Cap'n Yoaz on June 22, 2004 01:17 PM
Ho Ho Hey
Ho Ho Hey
What will Theresa let you say?

Hey Hey Ho
Hey Hey Ho
She wears the pants (as we all know)

Posted by: HippieScum on June 22, 2004 01:19 PM
Senator Kerry: How does it feel to be the first dustmop nominated by a major party for the office of President?

Posted by: 5minutes on June 22, 2004 01:23 PM
Senator Kerry,

Since your wife has been on the scene no one seems to know where Dustin Hoffman is. Care to comment?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:24 PM
Did you enjoy playing Lurch on The Addams Family?

Posted by: Colt Springfield on June 22, 2004 01:27 PM
Do you have a burning sensation when you pee?

Ever get that not so fresh feeling?

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 01:27 PM
C'mon, for old times sake. Could you please say, "You rang?" in that low, slow baritone voice of yours?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:30 PM
Last one

"If Ted Kennedy is killed, will you commit seppuku?"

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 01:31 PM
Would you like to comment on any of these questions before deciding not to comment on them?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:32 PM
Got any snowboarding or bike riding tips?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:33 PM
Should you become the President, and Dan Rather shows up at the White House in a blue dress holding a pizza and says "you're hair looks very French today, may I come in?", your response would be what?

Posted by: Paleo on June 22, 2004 01:37 PM
Senator, can you tell us how to marry money so we don't have to work either?

or

Senator, how can one man suck so much?

Posted by: Exile on June 22, 2004 01:49 PM
Senator, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck would chuck wood? Alternatively, since you spend more on your hair than most third world nations spend on food, why do you still look like one of those angry trees from the Wizard of Oz?

Posted by: Pat Rand on June 22, 2004 01:51 PM
If you were President today, what would be your response to the third beheading of a hostage by terrorists in the past month?

And please don't tell me the response will involve seeking U.N. approval.

Posted by: Libertarian Hawk on June 22, 2004 01:58 PM
Let's see, something theological, so he can show us he's a religious guy.

Senator, in your opinion, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Posted by: Dave in Texas on June 22, 2004 02:03 PM
Since you have indicated on national TV categorically (Russert- Meet the Press) that the war on terror should be primarily one of intelligence and law enforcement, and since trying that in the 90's resulted in as many dead as at Pearl Harbor, why should we expect a return to this policy to result in anything more than more american dead, and dead HERE? Please be EXACT in how you expect to have this result in a different end.

Posted by: epimondas on June 22, 2004 02:13 PM
Senator, with the fact that your head is bolted on, will you be willing to stick your neck out to round up the Iraqi scum responsible for the beheadings? And will you utilize your extensive 4-month Viet Nam skills to do so?

Posted by: FilthyMcNasty on June 22, 2004 02:23 PM
Mr Kerry
If you win the election, will you be painting the white house pink?

Posted by: James Old Guy on June 22, 2004 02:32 PM

Senator Kerry, Do you or do you not own multiple SUV's? Even a ...gasp.....*CHEVY SUBURBAN*?!

If John Kerry can't answer that, he shouldn't be allowed to run a coffee maker, much less the USA.

Posted by: Scott Sanburn on June 22, 2004 02:47 PM
If you become president, will you and your wife share the secret of producing the regenerating flesh you use to cover your cyborg endoskeleton?

Posted by: Beck on June 22, 2004 02:52 PM
So Johny-boy, how many times a day do you check out IMAO?

Posted by: DaDougster on June 22, 2004 03:06 PM
Did you serve in Vietnam?

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus on June 22, 2004 03:16 PM
During your life Mr. Kerry you've been married to two rich women. Being that you have no personality or sence of humor, how did you do that?

Posted by: Robert on June 22, 2004 03:27 PM
If you had the opportunity to change the vote you made in favor of the Iraq War in 2002, would you, and why?

Posted by: Scotwalker on June 22, 2004 03:29 PM
With what tyrant/dictator/despot/barbarian from history do you most identify?

As a follow up, please provide several examples of amusing ways in which his/her name can be incorporated into your own.

Posted by: No One of Consequence on June 22, 2004 03:34 PM
In that you seem to hold two contradicting views on issues, just how many personalities are fighting for dominance inside your head?

Posted by: Aris Ravencroft on June 22, 2004 03:39 PM
Senator, in one of your commercials you say the country is headed in the wrong direction because 43 million people don't have health care [insurance]. Given that a greater number of people today have benefits than ever before in the history of the country, would you consider the "right way" to be the removal of these benefits?

Posted by: LibertyBob on June 22, 2004 03:39 PM
Senator Kerry, wouldn't electing you to the office of Commander in Chief be like putting an Anti-Christ in as the Pope?

Posted by: Grant Jensen on June 22, 2004 03:44 PM
"Let me begin by telling you I am a Republican, and I voted for George W Bush in the last election, and you're welcome. Now... Hey, wait up! I didn't get to ask my question!!"

Posted by: veep on June 22, 2004 04:01 PM
If I kill you do I become you?

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 04:07 PM

Since I'm sure that he wouldn't have a comprehensible answer to any question I asked, why waste my time with a question that I really want asked? So here goes my rude, let's see him turn red and start to bluster, question:
Sen. Kerry, why do you prefer France to the US?

Posted by: Veeshir on June 22, 2004 04:29 PM
I have several questions:

Senator Kerry, you claim that the Iraq war is the worst foreing policy debacle in the last 200 years of American history; did you forget that you served in Vietnam?

Senator Kerry, you keep on claiming that we are in the worst economic quagmire since the great depression; how does our current record economic growth, 1.4 million jobs created since August, near zero inflation, near zero interest rates, all despite the Clinton dot-com bubble, the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center, and two wars, compare to the Carter Administration?

Senator Kerry, you keep calling for Bush to reach out to the "international community" in the war on terror, even though 15 of 19 NATO countries, half the EU, and a total coalition larger than that of the first Gulf War are all behind the U.S.; does this mean that, in essence, what you really want is for all U.S. foreign policy to be approved by FRANCE?

Senator Kerry, you keep reminding us of your service in Vietnam while deriding Bush for his service in the Alabama National Guard; didn't we lose Vietnam, while Alabama today remains free from Soviet aggression?

Senator Kerry, you seem fixated on the unemployment "crisis" under Bush; how is the national unemployment rate of 5.6% today worse than the national unemployment rate of 5.6% at the end of Clinton's first term?

Senator Kerry, you complain about the 43 million Americans without health care and desire a socialist-style universal health care system similar to Canada and Europe; are you suggesting that the thousands of wealthy Canadians and Europeans who come to the United States to spend money on our capitalist-based system when they are unable to receive the same level of quality at home are somehow in error?

Senator Kerry, can you point to a single action in your long Senate career that actually acomplished anything of historical significance?

Senator Kerry, it is clear that if you lose this election that Hillary Clinton is set up as the savior of your party in 2008, and if you win, her hopes of ever being President will suffer tremendously; do you really expect the Clintons to do anything at all to help you win this election?

Senator Kerry, you continuously comment that we need to end our dependence on Arab oil; does this mean that you will support drilling in ANWR, coastal oil exploration, wind farms off the coast of Massachusets, a resurgence of coal, the upgrading of American refineries and power plants, or the use of nuclear power, or is your only solution to raise taxes on SUV's to the point that only someone with $600 million in the bank can own one?

Senator Kerry, do you own a tie that isn't pink or lime green?

Senator Kerry, you have yet to articulate a clear and definitive stance on gay marriage; are you confident that if you don't give overt support of gay marriage you will cater to mainstream America knowing that the gay lobby will give you unconditional support simply because you are not George W. Bush?

Senator Kerry, you continue to make a big deal out of the fact that you served in Vietnam while the President was only in the Guard; has your view of military service changed since 1992, when you lectured that Americans should put Vietnam behind them and support Bill Clinton, who avoided military service altogether, going to the Soviet Union while the President flew dangerous missions in fighter jets over the Artic Circle, keeping us safe from Soviet Attack while the bulk of our military was bogged down in Vietnam?

Senator Kerry, many of your supporters would like to see you run with John McCain as your running mate, calling for a "unity ticket" to end partisan politics; since McCain will never run with you, how about if you instead take a lead in the Senate to work with Republicans instead of against them, creating a "unity legislature" to end partisan politics?

Speaking of McCain, Senator Kerry, since McCain is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war and pro-capitalist, and since many of the people who wanted him to be President seem to now be supporting you, do you feel pressured to take on any of those extreme right-wing stances?

Senator Kerry, Ralph Nader is running, asking democrats who oppose the war to turn to him because you voted for the war; in order to avoid another Nader spoiler like 2000, how will you cater to the extreme left-wing?

Senator Kerry, you keep saying you aren't going to raise taxes, yet you also keep saying you want to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich; what, exactly, is the difference between repealing a tax cut and raising taxes?

Senator Kerry, you seem to like being compared to John F. Kennedy: you note that you have the same initials, you recall your childhood as a guest in the Kennedy compound, you note that you are both Navy men who went to war, then went to law school, then became Massachusets Senators; what do you think of the facts that President Kennedy cut taxes, spent money on space exploration, fought communism, and appointed his brother Attorney General for the purpose of fighting the unions who were corrupting business in America?

Senator Kerry, you oppose American "unilateralism" in attacking Iraq without the support of France; do you now regret supporting the unilateral American attacks on Iraq in 1998 and Kosovo in 2000?

Senator Kerry, in all your speeches, you say you are going to solve all the problems of the Bush Administration; what, exactly, are you going to do in order to achieve this result?

Senator Kerry, in recalling the battle where you won the Silver Star, you say that after an initial fire-fight, you used a .50 BMG to gun down a Vietnamese soldier in the back while he was retreating; how does this compare to American prison guards who took photographs of terrorists in silly poses?

Senator Kerry, do you offer any solution to any problem in the world other than repealing tax cuts and reaching out the international community?

Senator Kerry, I live in a state where liberal democrats like yourself run nearly every government office from the governor's chair down to the local city council; my state is one of only four that is still on an economic downslide, does this mean that you want the other 46 to follow suit?

Senator Kerry, will you just hurry up and lose already so I can get on with the next four years?

There--one of those ought to win.

Posted by: dvgulliver on June 22, 2004 04:34 PM
In the posse scene in the movie First Blood ("we're not huntin' Kerry - Kerry's huntin' us!") would you have "screwed-up" and left them all alive like Rambo did?

Posted by: Paleo on June 22, 2004 04:50 PM
What valuable lessons on work ethic did you learn during your struggle to build your vast ketchup empire?

Posted by: Paleo on June 22, 2004 05:01 PM
Question: What country is the only country in history that coninuously relies on other nations to bail it out of trouble, only to turn around and spit in the face of its liberators? (If you need some help, it smells of cheese and rhymes with "can'ts"!)

Posted by: The Knights Who Say "NEE"! on June 22, 2004 05:13 PM
Who wrote the book of love?

Posted by: Dave in Texas on June 22, 2004 05:29 PM
You said you would create 10 million new jobs in the next four years. We are on a pace, despite 9/11, wars, etc, to create 14 million new jobs in the next 4 years (largely due to Bush administration initiatives). Why would you cut 4 million new jobs out of the economy in the next 4 years (putting 4 million people out of work)?

Posted by: matt on June 22, 2004 05:32 PM
Kerry is it true that you are hung like an elf?

Posted by: Sloofus on June 22, 2004 06:22 PM
Senator, did you know that Bendict Arnold was a war hero, too?

Posted by: N. O'Brain, IMfUI on June 22, 2004 06:24 PM
Mr. Kerry, what type of wood is it that you use to build that fence on which you ride?

Posted by: Lillian on June 22, 2004 06:54 PM
Got any gum?

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 07:00 PM
"Excuse me Senator, I can't seem to remember....did you serve in Vietnam?"

Posted by: Jen on June 22, 2004 08:33 PM
So what size are the family pants your wife wears?

Posted by: Turkeyhead on June 22, 2004 08:45 PM
Dear Mr. Kerry,

Will you apologize to Andy Serkis for blatantly ripping off his portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol to use during your campaign?

P.S.

Please do not blame your loss on the "nasty hobbitses".

Posted by: cb1100rider on June 22, 2004 09:42 PM
If the U.N. and France disagreed about what the U.S. should do in a certain situation, (and both were equally against our interests), who should we listen to?

Posted by: Megan on June 22, 2004 10:15 PM
Mr. Kerry, why are you still standing on my great country's soil?

Posted by: CommieBastard on June 22, 2004 11:27 PM
Senator Kerry, you recently (like when you decided to run for President in Florida) revealed that you are not Irish (like you've implied for years), but are in fact partly Jewish. Why do you believe electing someone who is partly Jewish will endear us to Islamofascists and, perhaps even more questionably, to the French?

Posted by: twalsh on June 22, 2004 11:48 PM
Finally thought of something.

"Senator Kerry, in November, will you vote for yourself before voting against yourself for president?"

And I'm 85th! (God, I need to get a life.)

Posted by: Matt on June 23, 2004 12:50 AM
Sen. Kerry: Can you validate my parking?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:35 AM
Sen. Kerry: Are you going to finish that sandwich?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:36 AM
Sen. Kerry: How many mutually exclusive opinion can fit in your head at one time?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:37 AM
Sen. Kerry: If you were ice cream what flavor you be?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:38 AM
Sen Kerry, who are you liking for president this time?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:39 AM
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

or

Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?

Posted by: John on June 23, 2004 01:59 AM

Is Teresa really a 92 million piece of ass?

Posted by: on June 23, 2004 02:22 AM
Senator Kerry, do you like botox?

Posted by: Dan on June 23, 2004 05:15 AM
Senator Kerry, have you possessed my Magic 8-Ball? It only answers "yes and no.."

Posted by: LokiDoki on June 23, 2004 09:02 AM
Senator Kerry;

We all know you served in Vietnam. Which side did you fight for?

Posted by: J. Fielek on June 23, 2004 09:11 AM

Sen. Kerry:

1) Do you know what its like to be shoved into the mud and kicked in the head with metal boot?!?!?

2) Did you order the "Code Red"???!?!?!

Posted by: "Magoop" on June 23, 2004 02:10 PM

Do you know who I am?

Posted by: Ken hahn on June 23, 2004 04:29 PM

Which one do you disagree with?

2004-06-27T02:59:00.000-04:00

Adam Michnik: I look at the war in Iraq from three points of view. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a totalitarian state. It was a country where people were murdered and tortured. So I'm looking at this through the eyes of the political prisoner in Baghdad, and from this point of view I'm very grateful to those who opened the gates of the prison and who stopped the killing and the torture. Second, Iraq was a country that supported terrorist attacks in the Middle East and all over the world. I consider that 9/11 was the day when war was started against my own work and against myself. Even though we are not sure of the links, Iraq was one of the countries that did not lower its flags in mourning on (sic.) 9/11. There are those who think this war could have been avoided by democratic and peaceful means. But I think that no negotiations with Saddam Hussein made sense, just as I believe that negotiations with Hitler did not make sense. And there is a third reason. Poland is an ally of the United States of America. It was our duty to show that we are a reliable, loyal, and predictable ally. America needed our help, and we had to give it. This was not only my position. It was also the position of Havel, Konrad, and others.

...

We take this position because we know what dictatorship is. And in the conflict between totalitarian regimes and democracy you must not hesitate to declare which side you are on. Even if a dictatorship is not an ideal typical one, and even if the democratic countries are ruled by people whom you do not like. I think you can be an enemy of Saddam Hussein even if Donald Rumsfield is also an enemy of Saddam Hussein.

Hat Tip: Chicago Boyz.

And may God bless the Polish Government and people.

Schaer, your opinion:

2004-06-27T02:57:00.000-04:00

The IAF released their tapes from the attack on the USS Liberty.

Roll call.

2004-06-27T02:56:00.000-04:00

Event A: These great games of the Olympics...

Event B: RAMALLAH, West Bank - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) on Saturday called for a cease-fire with Israel during the upcoming Olympic games in Greece, but Israel dismissed the offer as insincere.

Where do you stand?

The ethics of unilateral action

2004-06-27T02:48:00.000-04:00

Let us remember why we are RegressiveDecision:

I did this because I could.

A helpful reminder from the Ministry of Truth

2004-06-26T19:05:00.000-04:00

Remember the things you need to keep in mind to enjoy Fahrenheit 9/11:

1. Al Quaida came into existence January 21, 2001.

2. The World Trade Center was certainly not attacked in 1993, nor were our embassies bombed in Africa, nor the Khobar Barracks bombed in Saudi Arabia, nor the USS Cole attacked when Bill Clinton was busy shagging the help. Nut-uh, didn't happen.

3. Afghanistan didn't go to hell because of the Soviet invasion of that country on Christmas Day 1979, because there was no Soviet Union. Duh, communism has never really been tried, so never really failed. The Soviet Union was just another form of rapacious capitalism, like WalMart and jock itch.

4. Jimmy Carter's presidency never welcomed the coup in Iraq that brought Saddam to power, nor was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the fault of Carter's feckless foreign policy. See #3.

5. Iraq/Saddam was armed by Amerika, so ignore the fact that their military sported Soviet made hardware. See #3.

Hat tip: Commissar!

I CONQUERED! ROAR!

2004-06-26T15:52:00.000-04:00

I saw...

Farenheit 9/11 last nigt and, I must say, it was quite a moving film.

Like Triumph of the Will but in English!

I went into the theater thinking that there would be a lot I would disagree with.

The support for Ralph Nader's abjectly anti-war position, for example. Whereas Kerry believes Americans should die in Iraq under a UN mandate, Nader believes they should come home. Where do you stand, infidel?

With all of the facts layed out, however, I believe most of his opinions were right on the mark.

There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Take, for example, the assertion that only 1 member of the Congress out of 535 has a son or daughter serving in Iraq. Why did he narrow the scope so much?

[1] This measure discounts all war veterans to zero. The case in point which was most apparent was Senator Inouye of Hawaii:

Daniel K. Inouye, the third most senior member of the U.S. Senate, is known for his distinguished record as a legislative leader, and as a World War II combat veteran who earned the nation's highest award for military valor, the Medal of Honor.

[2] This doesen't count those who served in the military in general, such as Senator Jon S. Corzine, who served in the Marine Reserves.
[3] This doesn't count members whose children are serving in non-Iraq, non-Afghanistan operations.
[4] It does not count the extended family of members; to wit, a member of the North Dakota Congressional Caucus has a cousin (?) serving in Afghanistan.

Hopefully, this growing fervor against the war will change some opinions.

I think the fervor is shrinking.

John Stewart made an amazing comment on his show the other night.

I'd speculate he also made a funny one too...

He pointed out that if you look at the reasons why we went to war, the weapons of mass destruction, the ties to Al-Qaida, and the liberation of an oppressed people, those reasons could have described six or seven different countries, which makes me wonder why Iraq, out of all the ruthless dictatorships, out of all the terrorist countries (now we know otherwise), HAD to be first, HAD to be the example.

Well, you blood thirsty warmongering fascist imperialist neocon Jew, you are an ambitious one! Perhaps you would consider supporting Bush's reelection campaign if you believe we should attack the following nations:

[1] Syria
[2] Lebanon
[3] Iran
[4] Saudi Arabia
[5] the Sudan
[6] Yemen
[7] Somalia

I'm kidding about the neocon Jew part, but seriously - we took enough shit for attacking Iraq, the center of the Arab world. How many other nations do you want to hit?

Now that we have "liberated"(TM) Iraq, it comes to light that the first two arguments against Iraq were, if not false, extremely weak.

Does it?

[1] Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.
[2] Link between Saddam and bin Laden found from Iraqi Government sources.

Oh and by the way, for someone whose people came from this you think you would not piss on the graves of people like this.

As someone who is Polish, I can state my fair opposition to the machinery of death.

Even before this war, there was a much better and more convincing argument to invade other middle eastern countries,

Are you doing this because of your pro-Israeli stance? Is the United States supposed to carry Israeli water by annihilating every nation that is a security threat to them?

actively harboring terrorists, and contributing greatly to the terror war that plagues our society.

Syria comes to mind,

Oh does it really now?

with ties to hizbullah, Islamic jihad, and Al-Qaida. (Not to mention the two-for-one deal we'd get with invading Syria, we'd get Lebanon free!)

I doubt we'd get Lebanon free...consider Israel's experience in Lebanon in 1980.

I'm not even going to mention Saudi Arabia, there's NO WAY Bush would ever go to war with the Sauds.

Warmonger. Seriously, if you want to go toe to toe with the Sauds, shouldn't we have a reliable footprint in the region first?

So here are the questions we can ask: Why was Iraq the goal for conquest?

Look at a map. Tell me how much power Iraq's strategic location is worth.

We've created a Baghdad - Kuwait City - Ankara? - Amman - Jerusalem - Cairo axis. Across the Middle East and running down the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia (where the oiiiiiiiiiiillllllllll is) are a ring of American allied states. We are occupying the critical center of the Arab heartland. The strategic reason alone was good enough.

Why was the Bush administration so eager to place blame for the terror war on Saddam?

Because he was responsible for aiding and abetting enemies of the United States of America?

Why did we pevert this war against terrorism?

You little prevert. ;)

We peverted the war on terror because it is not enough to smash al-Qaida, but to drain the fighters and logisticians away from their war against us and to strategically encircle states that are opposed to America *cough Iran cough*.

...I'll let Michael More respond
.
And for after the movie, ask this question: How can we make things right?
try this

Comment

2004-06-26T02:47:00.000-04:00

Dan: I saw 911
Brian: : I did as well!
Dan: and?
Dan: crap?
Dan: some well made points?
Brian: : It made me a stiffer Republican
Dan: okay
Brian: : I thought what he did to the war mother was very sad.
Dan: I think she wanted her story out there.
Dan: He did nothing
Dan: It was the war that did everything
Brian: : But provide the microphone.
Dan: so whats wrong with shedding a tear with the entire liberal majority?
Brian: : I cried in the beginning.
Brian: : Not the end.
Dan: She would cry whether that mic was there or not.
Brian: : I cried from when the sound started until when the pictures started.
Brian: : Then I remembered just how deep my hatred runs.
Dan: and I remembered how carried away I was
Dan: at how badly I wanted to blame ANYONE
Dan: and bomb the shit out of something
Brian: : I felt no pity at all when I saw the woman with her bombed out house.
Dan: nor did I
Brian: : I thought that was a good start, and that disproportional retaliation is the bedrock of American military doctrine.
Dan: i felt pity when I saw our soldiers dying
Brian: : That America would not exist today if we did not use disproportionate retaliation.
Dan: okay
Brian: : And that Kerry has the balls to do it if push comes to shove.
Dan: you believe that?
Brian: : I can't believe he doesn't, because the next time will be worse.
Brian: : I thought the last 5 minutes could have been put into like a dozen pro-Bush commercials with like 5 seconds of editing.
Dan: Then why wouldn't you want someone in office who won't put corporations before American lives,
Dan: someone who doesn't stand to benifit?
Brian: : Corporations are people too, Daniel.
Brian: : But seriously, every politician is bought.
Brian: : It requires a more serious link.
Dan: okay
Brian: : You proved how Governor Kean is involved with the Saudi bin Ladens. Do you believe he was culpable in covering up mass murder?
Dan: well if you walked away feeling a stronger republican, I walked away a stronger democrat
Brian: : I thought it was a cheap stunt with what he did to the mother.
Brian: : I thought alot of it was unsubstantiated.
Brian: : I thought the sound track was magnificent.
Dan: and I think she wanted her story out there
Dan: thats my philosophy with film
Dan: sound is 80% of the film
Brian: : She wanted her story out there.
Brian: : Maybe.
Brian: : Who knows?
Brian: : The letter is when I knew it was a stunt.
Brian: : ...and that George Bush W idiot...
Dan: why do you think Speilberg sticks with Williams
Dan: you think it was faked?
Brian: : We're all classicists at heart :)
Brian: : It told you everything you wanted to hear.
Brian: : My cousin, the liberal democrat, was floored by it.
Dan: so what is so upsetting to you about a soldier who wanted to let out his anger at why he was there with his mother
Dan: he liked it,
Dan: or hated it?
Brian: : He hated the mother thing, thought it was a stunt.
Dan: really
Brian: : Considering what Moore does in past movies, you know it's a stunt.
Dan: i say bs.
Dan: she was no actor,
Brian: : Ever see Roger and Me?
Dan: yes
Dan: long time ago
Brian: : No, she was selected from 1 out of ~800.
Dan: in hebrew school
Dan: who happened to be from the same town as Moore?
Brian: : Flint?
Dan: yah.
Dan: thats where she was frim
Dan: she worked at the unemployment office there
Brian: : He had a man like me call her and ask for a few moments of her time to talk about an article he saw in the Flint Free Press.
Dan: why does your coz think its a stunt again?
Dan: i still don't see it
Brian: : He thinks that it was set up with too overt a political agenda and it was used bluntly.
Dan: that was the point
Dan: read Binart's peice in TNR about being overly bi-partisan
Dan: it gets you nowhere.
Brian: : Do you think Clinton agrees?
Dan: probably not
Brian: : Or FDR?
Brian: : Or LBJ?
Brian: : Or Reagan?
Dan: they all were partisan at one point
Dan: thats why they were part of a party
Brian: : The great legislative achievements of our time - whether I like them or not, were done with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Brian: : Reagan loved Tip O'Neill
Dan: we were so bipartisan over this war, and thats why we're in this mess today
Dan: its even in the film
Dan: when daschle supports the Iraq war
Brian: : Yes.
Brian: : Ahead of the 2002 elections.
Dan: we tried to be bi-partisan
Brian: : Thus you were presented with me and me, too.
Dan: we tried to trust you guys
Dan: and you failed us
Brian: : I didn't fail you.
Dan: you lied to us
Brian: : The Republican leadership beat the Democrats.
Dan: whatever,
Dan: now we have to deal with it
Brian: : You make it seem like this is an existential threat to the American Republic.
Dan: and I'd rather it be John Kerry to do it frankly.
Brian: : You seem caught up in the wave of fear.
Dan: its an existential threat to our standing in the world
Dan: its isolationism flipped inside out, this new policy
Brian: : It's neoimperialism.
Dan: unilateralism
Brian: : Except we're closing bases in Europe and NE Asia.
Dan: uni=iso
Brian: : Did you ever wonder, at night, who was left standing?
Dan: our integrity sure wasn't
Brian: : No, I meant amongst the great powers.
Dan: you mean at the end of the cold war?
Brian: : No, I mean today.
Brian: : Which powers are left?
Dan: you tell me how big of a power Saddam was
Dan: right before the war
Brian: : Above Saudi, the GCC and below Iran, Turkey and Israel
Dan: how could you honestly go against the quotes made by colin powel and rice in 2001 about saddam with "no weapons" and "a deteriorating regime"
Dan: it was all a facade
Dan: thats what the makup at the beginning of the movie meant
Brian: : How do you reconcile that with what Clinton did?
Dan: in regards to?
Dan: kosovo?
Brian: : Bombing the shit out of Iraq in '98
Brian: : Saying there was a link between Iraq and Saddam
Dan: you mean bin ladin?
Brian: : No! lol yes
Dan: those were the only grounds for bombing iraq?
Brian: : There were alot.
Dan: i was only 12, but if i do remember correctly, we bombed iraq because of no-fly zones violations
Dan: and that is REALLY jogging my memory
Dan: from when I was 12
Brian: :
Brian: : we had to deal with iraq's WMD program
Dan: Israel did that
Dan: but yes, i do remember something about bio-chemi
Brian: : Go look it up. We recycled Clinton's allegations and added Zawaqiri (sp.)
Dan: but it seems as though those days were gone by 2003
Dan: the lesson learned
Dan: good for Clinton, bad for Bush
Brian: : Do you think Saddam got rid of his systems?
Dan: you mean launch systems
Dan: or delivery systems
Dan: or actual weapons-grade materials
Dan: which one was actually there?
Dan: NONE!!!
Brian: : We found WMD.
Dan: now?
Brian: : a while ago
Dan: where?
Dan: kansas?
Brian: : No...
Brian: : Iraq
Dan: apparently he did
Dan: one way or another
Brian: : One moment
Brian: : Check regressivedecision, post#2
Dan: what about it
Dan: it cuts off
Brian: : The New York Times
Brian: : post
Brian: : http://regressivedecision.blogspot.com/2004/06/saddam-bin-laden-links-found-new-york.html
Dan: and 10 years before that WE were helping Usama
Brian: : No.
Brian: : That's wrong.
Brian: : Really really wrong.
Dan: its a decade old reason
Dan: give it a rest
Dan: no current ties
Dan: no connection
Dan: enemy of my enemy is my friend
Brian: : http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/hizbi-islami.htm
Dan: type thing
Dan: and we fed our supplies and resources through pakistan
Dan: fas fails to report that
Brian: : That was the Party that got virtually everything.
Brian: : I recommend Charlie Wilson's War.
Brian: : It shows the good ol' days when Democrats had spine, the South.
Dan: we still do have spine
Dan: the boss
Brian: : Oh really?
Brian: : 100%
T/F Is Iraq a quagmire?
Dan: define quagmire
Dan: remember who taught me modern US history
Brian: : Think of Vietnam, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket
Dan: you mean no moral reason for why our soldiers are dying
Dan: false
Dan: you mean terrible mistake in geopolitics
Dan: true
Brian: : Why is it a terrible mistake?
Dan: isolationism
Brian: : No
Brian: : No
Brian: : Why was attacking and suborning Iraq a mistake?
Dan: "the Bush administration accepts anti-Americanism as a compliment"
Brian: : We are rationalizing our defense priorities with a new war. I understand that, as a function of your religion, you would support keeping the Germans down forever - but it does not match our new agenda.
Dan: i support engaging with the germans instead of shirking off their input
Brian: : Of?
Dan: globalization is deteriorating our superpower status, and a united europe could overtake us
Brian: : Have they stopped giving us feeds at Interpol?
Brian: : Have they closed Ramstein?
Brian: : The Bundeswehr is shot to hell.
Brian: : It's still a partial-conscript force.
Dan: look at the broad picture
Brian: : Look at the broad picture. Let's go for the remote corners of this planet - the Straits of Malacca.
Dan: shirking Europe will exclude us from the collaberative nations
Brian: : We just signed a deal with Singapore to sweep pirates out of the way.
Dan: we don't want that
Brian: : America is recentering on our priorities - Europe is not a priority.
Brian: : Europe is a collapsing entity.
Brian: : Every index shows a Europe in meltdown.
Dan: im so tired
Brian: : I mean not just we can fix it meltdown - like Europe ex-Luxembourg is so fucking poor.
Brian: : They are poorer than Bama!
Brian: : They are poor, unemployed, looking for past glory and pursuing nuclear weapons.
Brian: : Britain is about to destroy the EU.
Brian: : Stick to Milton Friedman.
Brian: : He says the Euro will be the greatest monetary disaster of our time.
Brian: : If Europe doubled their defense spending, they still wouldn't match America.
Brian: : They are too far behind.
Brian: : And this isn't the time where we can dig for salt-peter. It's industries and subcontractors...
Brian: : You saw it in part today.
Brian: : United Defense isn't European. It's American.
Brian: : Go to bed, young one.
Dan: (2:46:52 AM): i'm tired
Dan: (2:47:11 AM): i can see we have opposing views on foriegn policy
Dan: (2:47:45 AM): yours grounded on present situation, mine floating on speculation
Dan: (2:48:03 AM): but at least I'll admit that.
Brian: (2:48:10 AM): i cant take the prospect that you're right
Brian: (2:48:15 AM): because then we're facing the entire world alone
Dan: (2:48:44 AM): just read wieseltier's article about iso=uni
Dan: (2:48:52 AM): its interesting, thats all
Dan: (2:49:11 AM): http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=wieseltier062804
Dan: (2:49:15 AM): its not restricted
Brian: (2:49:22 AM): k
Brian: (2:49:58 AM): I would not have supported this war.
Brian: (2:50:02 AM): Have you ever seen the pictures?
Dan: (2:50:26 AM): just read
Dan: (2:50:30 AM): bypass the rhetoric
Dan: (2:50:35 AM): get to the juice
Brian: (2:50:36 AM): You're a Jew, you should see this.
Brian: (2:50:45 AM): Same reason I, a Pole, should
Dan: (2:50:45 AM): im going to sleep
Brian: (2:50:49 AM): Wait
Brian: (2:51:16 AM): http://massgraves.info/
Brian: (2:52:22 AM): We cannot fight Islamic radicalism, I mean militarily, without creating Islamic radicalism.
Brian: (2:52:30 AM): We cannot fight German radicalism, I mean militarily, without creating German radicalism.
Dan: (2:53:17 AM): germany is a country
Dan: (2:53:21 AM): islam is a religion
Brian: (2:53:25 AM): Not always.
Brian: (2:53:28 AM): We both know that.
Dan: (2:53:29 AM): a people beyond one border
Brian: (2:53:48 AM): At our expense, Germany was not a country but a messianistic spirit that wanted to subjugate most of the world.
Dan: (2:53:51 AM): think about it
Dan: (2:53:53 AM): 911
Dan: (2:53:57 AM): we were attacked
Dan: (2:54:04 AM): what did the western countries say?
Brian: (2:54:12 AM): Why do you care what they say?
Dan: (2:54:12 AM): "were all americans!"
Brian: (2:54:16 AM): Why not care what they do?
Brian: (2:54:26 AM): THE TALIBAN SENT US CONDOLENCES
Brian: (2:54:27 AM): lol
Dan: (2:54:35 AM): THERE ARE FRENCH AND GERMAN FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN
Brian: (2:54:40 AM): Good for them.
Brian: (2:54:43 AM): I thank them for it.
Dan: (2:54:45 AM): they fought the war on terrorism
Dan: (2:54:50 AM): not our stupid perversion
Brian: (2:54:59 AM): I don't believe stupid is the right word.
Dan: (2:55:04 AM): irresponsibl
Brian: (2:55:07 AM): But tell me, how much power does Iraq have in the Arab World?
Dan: (2:55:08 AM): unilateral
Dan: (2:55:15 AM): reckless
Brian: (2:55:17 AM): What is the center of the Arab world, of the Middle East and Central Asia?
Dan: (2:55:20 AM): unforseeing
Brian: (2:55:24 AM): It's not reckless - it's premediated.
Dan: (2:55:35 AM): premeditated recklessness
Dan: (2:55:39 AM): lol
Dan: (2:55:44 AM): oxymoron
Brian: (2:55:44 AM): Lebanon, 1980
Dan: (2:55:50 AM): but its so true
Dan: (2:56:01 AM): Zanzibar 1913
Brian: (2:56:13 AM): What?
Brian: (2:56:14 AM): lol
Dan: (2:56:26 AM): lol
Brian: (2:56:34 AM): We picked the fricking center smack dab of the Arab World.
Brian: (2:56:38 AM): Everything rotates around Baghdad.
Dan: (2:56:46 AM): bullshit
Brian: (2:56:54 AM): What other Arab country has that gravity?
Dan: (2:56:58 AM): SA
Brian: (2:57:10 AM): All on a base of 20 million people, most in the desert?
Brian: (2:57:24 AM): No, they got oil and Allah but that doesn't give them the sustainability for delusions of power.
Dan: (2:57:46 AM): which is why they have gone to terror!
Dan: (2:57:53 AM): and perverted their allah
Brian: (2:57:59 AM): Well, it's not a perversion of their Allah.
Brian: (2:58:03 AM): It's old-skool.
Brian: (2:58:03 AM): llol
Dan: (2:58:06 AM): ok
Dan: (2:58:07 AM): fine
Dan: (2:58:12 AM): hudna style
Brian: (2:58:16 AM): Bingo
Dan: (2:58:19 AM): skeet skeet
Dan: (2:58:22 AM): lol
Brian: (2:58:26 AM): My goodness.
Brian: (2:58:32 AM): With Iraq, we can pressure Saudi Arabia in a way we could not before.
Dan: (2:58:35 AM): think of congo, 1411
Brian: (2:58:42 AM): Their oil resources are majority-Shi'a in Saudi Arabia.
Dan: (2:58:54 AM): skeet skeet skeet
Brian: (2:58:56 AM): If we can create a responsible Shi'a Government, we can encourage the demise of the House of Saud.
Brian: (2:58:58 AM): But is that the goal?
Dan: (2:59:03 AM): my uncle told me a great story
Dan: (2:59:05 AM): the other day
Brian: (2:59:06 AM): Dr. Gottlieb thought it was.
Brian: (2:59:07 AM): Do tell.
Dan: (2:59:30 AM): he told me of this time when he was in LA, south central, where my mother and him grew up
Dan: (2:59:36 AM): visiting his old home
Dan: (3:00:11 AM): and as he was walking from their old house to their school, some guy comes up to him in a dashiki robe, and a big hat
Dan: (3:00:27 AM): pulls out a 2 foot blade, and says...
Dan: (3:00:48 AM): "If this was the markets of Zanzibar, you'd be dead by now"
Brian: (3:00:56 AM): lol
Dan: (3:01:06 AM): so my uncle just walks on like nothing happened,
Dan: (3:01:13 AM): he gets about a block away
Dan: (3:01:26 AM): turns around, and the guy is still there looking at him with his blade in the air
Dan: (3:01:43 AM): probably the best story ive ever heard
Brian: (3:01:49 AM): It's very good.
Brian: (3:01:54 AM): They think that French is funny.
Brian: (3:01:59 AM): (1) lol
Brian: (3:02:05 AM): (2) France is done for.
Brian: (3:02:20 AM): You heard about the Israeli Minister for Overseas Jewry, right?
Brian: (3:02:32 AM): He drew up plans to handle 200 000 French Jews in a mass exodus.
Dan: (3:03:03 AM): nice
Dan: (3:03:06 AM): im going to sleep
Dan: (3:03:12 AM): soo tired
Brian: (3:03:18 AM): wait
Dan: (3:03:23 AM): but thanks for keeping my feet on the ground
Brian: (3:03:25 AM): 1 more second
Brian: (3:03:31 AM): Go here
Dan: (3:03:33 AM): no i cant even keep my eyes closed
Brian: (3:03:38 AM): Of course not
Brian: (3:03:41 AM): Jerusalem - The Jewish Agency is bracing itself for the immigration of tens of thousands French Jews into Israel as a result of a growing anti-Semitism in France, a spokesperson for the organisation said on Sunday. ...
Brian: (3:03:43 AM): 30000?
Brian: (3:03:51 AM): I saw 200 000...
Brian: (3:03:57 AM): Vatikai said that a report compiled by the agency had found 30 000 out of France's 575 000-strong Jewish community were considering immigrating to Israel. ...

French Justice Minister Dominique Perben said last week that 180 anti-Jewish acts had been recorded so far this year, including cases of assault, arson and verbal insults. ...

Vatikai said the situation for French Jews was becoming increasingly "difficult".

Brian: (3:04:02 AM): I saw in another article 200 000.
Brian: (3:04:08 AM): Maybe thats how bad they thought.
Brian: (3:04:09 AM): Go tobed.
Dan: (3:04:11 AM): yup
Dan: (3:04:18 AM): bad french
Dan: (3:04:29 AM): bad europe
Brian: (3:04:35 AM): God bless America.
Dan: (3:04:39 AM): bad muslims
Dan: (3:04:45 AM): bad christians
Brian: (3:04:52 AM): Because if you're right about Kristalnacht, it will be where it started...
Dan: (3:04:54 AM): we're better off alone, in israel
Brian: (3:05:00 AM): Not alone.
Brian: (3:05:03 AM): But you get the idea.
Dan: (3:05:03 AM): we'll surely win our war alone
Brian: (3:05:10 AM): Enough nukes, sure.
Dan: (3:05:17 AM): who will support Israel in america if we all left
Brian: (3:05:24 AM): The Christian right.
Dan: (3:05:25 AM): noone
Dan: (3:05:35 AM): there's no constituancy
Brian: (3:05:48 AM): Ever ask a Republican about this?
Dan: (3:06:07 AM): i need sleep
Dan: (3:06:09 AM): email me
Brian: (3:06:11 AM): Ask a Republican
Brian: (3:06:13 AM): Go to bed.
Dan: (3:06:14 AM): ok
Dan: (3:06:16 AM): will do

Does this make any sense?

2004-06-26T01:16:00.000-04:00

Poll finds Bush, Kerry race still close
Wisconsin voters remain in favor of president
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: June 24, 2004
Wisconsin voters have had a lot to absorb since the Bush-Kerry race began in earnest in March: millions of dollars in TV ads, high-profile campaign visits, the Iraq prison scandal, improving job numbers, Ronald Reagan's death, the early findings of the Sept. 11 commission.

But the net effect of it all has been in many ways negligible, a statewide Badger Poll suggests.

In key respects, the race is almost exactly where it was three months ago.

In a Badger Poll done March 23-31, 46% of Wisconsin adults thought President Bush was doing a good or excellent job.

Today it's 47%.

Back then, 45% said they would like to see Bush re-elected.

Today it's 43%.

Back then, 52% had a favorable impression of Bush, 41% unfavorable.

Today it's 52% favorable, 42% unfavorable.

Back then, 37% had a favorable impression of John Kerry, 34% unfavorable.

Today it's 36% favorable, 36% unfavorable.

Back then, in a three-way matchup, Bush had a small lead over Kerry - 47% to 41% - with independent Ralph Nader at 5%.

The new poll, of 504 voting-age adults surveyed June 15-23, is almost identical: Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%. That lead is within the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Even the share of undecided voters is virtually unchanged, despite the fact

What the devil?

2004-06-26T01:13:00.000-04:00

(CPOD) Jun. 25, 2004 – George W. Bush could carry the state of Nevada in the 2004 United States presidential election, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive published in the Wall Street Journal Online. 47.3 per cent of respondents would vote for the Republican incumbent, while 44.8 per cent would support prospective Democratic nominee, while

Nads for Nader!

2004-06-26T01:12:00.000-04:00

The rest of the polling data is inconsistent, however we will go with what we've got.
Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, gained 44 percent in Pennsylvania compared with 43 percent for Bush among 839 registered voters surveyed June 21-22 by Quinnipiac University.

The two states were among the 17 closest races in the 2000 election, when Bush defeated Democrat and former Vice President Al Gore. Bush, 57, won Ohio by 3.6 percentage points in 2000; Gore, 56, took Pennsylvania by 4.3 points. Kerry, 60, and Bush are spending most of their advertising dollars in those 17 so-called battleground states.

``Pennsylvania is living up to expectations as having one of the closest presidential battles in the nation,'' said Clay Richards, assistant director of the polling institute at Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac, in a statement. ``Ralph Nader clearly is cutting into Senator Kerry's vote.''

Nader, 70, a consumer activist, garnered 7 percent support in the Quinnipiac poll. In a poll last month, Kerry drew the support of 44 percent to Bush's 41 percent and Nader's 6 percent.

Two-Way Race

In the new survey, 49 percent said they would vote for Kerry in a two-way battle excluding Nader, while 43 percent picked Bush. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. Last month, Kerry led by 3 percentage points in a race with Bush alone. Quinnipiac counted responses only from registered voters and didn't determine how likely respondents are to vote.

In Ohio, Kerry's 6 point lead includes Nader in the race, according to Manchester, New Hampshire-based American Research Group's poll. Nader gained 2 percent support and 6 percent were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Democratic party leaders including party Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Nancy Pelosi, the party leader in the U.S. House, say Nader may be a ``spoiler'' in the election by drawing votes from Kerry.

``His presence in the race will jeopardize the election of a Democratic president,'' Pelosi told reporters today. ``I think he should get out of the race.

In 2000, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and got 2.7 percent of the vote nationwide. He drew as much as 5 percent in some states, such as Minnesota, that the Bush and Kerry campaigns expect will be decided by a few percentage points.

Nader doesn't have his name on the ballot yet in every state for the Nov. 2 election.

Follow up

2004-06-25T23:19:00.000-04:00

r00troute: Just admit you want the blacks to die and we'll move right over to the domestic side.
Dan Schaer: ok fine they all should die

I'm sure Dan's kidding. While he is a statist, he's not that bad.

Saddam - Bin Laden links found -- New York Times

2004-06-25T21:16:00.000-04:00

All the news that's fit to print.

WASHINGTON, June 24 - Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

So...if I understand correctly, Saddam was helping Usama. Oho!

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

Zionist Lies!

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Because Saddam keeps reciepts of this sorta thing? I'm surprised we found this.

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two.

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties.

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

Well, aren't we fuckered?

We're all tools

2004-06-25T21:08:00.000-04:00

contacts, yes. collaberation, a defiant no.

Except we're not too sure about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's identity.

It's also collaboration.

By that standard, describe Syria and Iran's involvement in Palestinian affairs. Are they contacting or collaborating? BTW, there was a memo released by DOD today from Saddam's HQ detailing how he ordered cooperation with Saudi Hezbollah and UBL.

...Kean, a Blind idealogue.

He knows more about the situation than you do, Comrade.

*ideologue

In fact, there's just as much evidence connecting KEAN himself to Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Thomas_H._Kean

lol

Why is Kerry a shill for the capitalist classes?

2004-06-25T20:57:00.000-04:00

Why was Kerry vacationing on Nantucket, of all places?

To go to this island retreat of the rich sent all the wrong messages to undecided voters, and it discourages his hard core.

Like his ski trip to Sun Valley, Idaho after the primaries, the junket to Nantucket, where Kerry owns a home, reinforces the image of Kerry as a member of the upper class. Since Bush traffics on his own synthetic image as a regular guy, Kerry's indifference to looking hoity-toity is foolish.

What's more, there are millions of Democrats who are so desperate to get Bush out of office that they don't want Kerry to waste a single minute.

An interesting article on Ron Reagan, Reagan's son

2004-06-25T20:49:00.000-04:00

Reagan, 46, who is a contributor to MSNBC and an occasional host on the Animal Planet channel, has long been an outspoken political liberal.

...

"If the younger Ron Reagan had a history as a conservative activist, I think this would mean something much more serious," he said. "But he had departed from many of his father's policies long ago, so this comes as less of a surprise."

...

Besides, Khachigian said, the GOP still has the other Reagan son in its corner: Michael Reagan, the nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host. Since his father's death, Michael Reagan has said that his father, like Bush, would have opposed stem cell research on moral grounds -- and that the suggestion such research is likely to cure Alzheimer's disease is politically motivated disinformation. "This is junk science at its worst," he wrote in a recent column.

...

In interviews this month, Ron Reagan has talked about Bush in conflicting tones, speaking with contempt for his policies but expressing gratitude for the courtesies the president extended to the Reagan family -- such as the use of Blair House and a presidential jet -- when they came to Washington for memorial services.

Reagan said those gestures "made life a lot easier" and that he also liked the eulogy Bush gave his father at Washington National Cathedral, saying it was "sweet." He also told CNN that he had "no personal animus" toward Bush, even though he believes the president is using religion inappropriately to justify his political actions and does not want him to win reelection.

...

Are terrorists evil?

2004-06-25T09:47:00.000-04:00

Is it evil to behead innocent men? (See: here, here, here, and here) Are terrorists evil?

Who has said all along that terrorists are evil-doers? And who has tried all along to instead portray terrorists as a group of slightly misguided people who can be negotiated with and dealt with by law enforcement?

Who identified the terrorist threat right from the start as what it truly was? And who instead has been out of touch with reality?

Who is the right choice for President during this war?

Thank you, Liberals, for revealing one of our weaknesses...

2004-06-25T09:23:00.000-04:00

"The bad, and entirely ignored, news [about the Bush interrogration documents] is that our most deadly enemies now know where the U.S. will draw the line should they fall into American hands." (Source)

This is another Mogadishu for Osama bin Laden.

What happened when Clinton yanked our troops out of Mogadishu at the first signs of something going wrong? Osama bin Laden used that little juicy tidbit as a promotional tool for al Qaeda, preaching that Americans are weak-spined and won't go very far to defend themselves.

What happened when Bush stuck to his word on Iraq? Osama bin Laden lost his propaganda tool because America was no longer the weak-spined country she was a decade earlier. Now, America is a force for terrorists to reckon with. (See: Gadhafi, Libya, surrender.)

What happened now that the terrorists know where we draw the line vis-a-vis torture? They're back in their post-Mogadishu, pre-Iraq mindset. They know that they are not bound by any rules, while we are.

AND THIS WAR CANNOT BE WON AS LONG AS WE ARE BOUND BY RULES AGAINST AN ENEMY THAT IS NOT.

"The incentive from now on will be for lawyers to provide internal counsel along the lines of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's infamous 1995 memo instructing FBI agents and federal prosecutors to go "beyond what the law requires" in limiting their collaboration against al Qaeda. We trust the folks who've forced this retreat stand ready to offer their mea culpas to the commission investigating the next major terrorist attack on the United States."

By their own admission

2004-06-24T22:41:00.000-04:00

Consider the following AIM conversation:
Dr. Gonzo (10:39:49 PM): oh, way to be unpatriotic you liberal fuckas
Dan from ProgressiveDecision (10:39:59 PM): yeah i hate america

-Dr. Gonzo

John Kerry would force America into another recession

2004-06-24T10:26:00.000-04:00

This comes right out of the Wall Street Journal, one of the foremost sources and authorities on the economic and financial situation: John Kerry's policies would throw many poor people out of work.

In fact, the logic is so basic I don't even need to quote the article. If you raise the minimum wage as Kerry wishes to do (to $7 per hour), that doesn't mean that people who are now getting just $5.15 will suddenly be making $7 and prospering. In most cases, industries and businesses and corporations will decide that the employees making $5.15 aren't worth keeping at $7... and so will fire them. So the end result will be the for many, many poor people, instead of their wages going up as a result of the minimum wage being increased, their wages will decrease to the absolute minimum wage: zero dollars per hour.

What's the lesson in this? The government cannot control the economy. Only the market supply and demand can control the economy.

When does the War on Terror end?

2004-06-23T16:19:00.000-04:00

Simple question, simple answer: when the terrorists no longer have any reason to commit terrorist attacks against America. When is that? Let's ask one of them:

"A recording purportedly made by Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi threatened to kill interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and fight the Americans 'until Islamic rule is back on Earth.'" (Source)

So what are the liberal peaceniks trying to say? They want to end the war. That means appeasing the terrorists (can anyone say "Neville Chamberlain"?) and letting "Islamic rule [be] back on Earth."

Come on, join me in saying it, all together now: "Allahu Akbar!"

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a tie!?

2004-06-22T19:44:00.000-04:00

According to Election Projection 2004, it's an electoral tie at 269 votes apiece for both Bush and Kerry!

Budget blunders for 800$!

2004-06-22T01:34:00.000-04:00

No one less than former Soviet Union foreign minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has credited Reagan’s defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile Communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America’s defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan’s powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets that they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire. Without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Koncerned ameriKans for _erry...

2004-06-22T01:29:00.000-04:00

Q.: If you were a mischievous Bush person and wanted to make some trouble for John Kerry, what would you do? A.: Start a rumor that Kerry has picked John Edwards as his running mate. That will ratchet up the current press buzz that Edwards is the inevitable, obvious choice, due to his charismatic brilliance as a campaigner. Then, if Kerry doesn't want to choose Edwards, he will a) be faced with annoying unwanted pressure and b) look like a vain man who doesn't want to be upstaged. If Edwards is the pick, then a) the pre-emptive rumor will blow the big surprise of Kerry's announcement and b) Kerry will look like he's been stampeded. It's win win! And it won't be a hard rumor to start. ...

Speaking of Voting One's Conscience...

2004-06-21T09:02:00.000-04:00

I read an excellent article this morning which, although from the conservative OpinionJournal, takes a very fair stance on the upcoming elections in light of what happened during 2000. (*cough* Florida *cough*)

Instead of "lawyering up," both parties should be working to prevent another Florida.

...

As the presidential campaigns pick up their brickbats again, it's time to look toward November and see if we might avoid recounts, lawsuits and challenges. But the campaigns are preparing for another Florida. "Both sides are lawyering up and we could see Florida-style challenges in every close state," says Doug Chapin of Electionline.org, which monitors electoral reforms.

The level of suspicion between the two parties is greater than ever. John Kerry says he believes Al Gore "won" the 2000 election and has assembled a team of 2,000 lawyers to "challenge anyplace in America where you cannot trace the vote and count the votes." Republicans have their own legal team to combat fake voter registrations, absentee-ballot fraud and residents of nursing homes being overly "assisted" to cast votes. Maria Cardona of the New Democrat Network dismisses such concerns, saying "ballot security and preventing voter fraud are just code words for voter intimidation and suppression." Liberal legal groups are suing to set aside laws in some of the 11 states that require photo ID at the polls on the grounds they discriminate against the poor and minorities.

...

In a rare example of bipartisan agreement, Reps. Rush Holt (D., N.J.) and Tom Davis (R., Va.) both back amending HAVA to require voting systems to produce a verifiable paper record. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supports a Senate version of the idea, says another contested election will cause people to "fundamentally lose confidence in our democracy and in their vote."

...

Mr. Gore's decision to contest the Florida election in 2000 until the bitter end may have permanently changed the way close elections are decided, in much the same way that judicial nomination battles have changed. If the election is close this November, endless lawsuits and recriminations could poison of public opinion and create a climate of illegitimacy around any final winner. Voters are used to having the final word in an election. Let's take steps to keep it that way, so we can minimize the use of scorched-earth tactics of trial lawyers to settle elections. The Floridification of our politics isn't something anyone should want.

Vote your conscience

2004-06-20T16:04:00.000-04:00

A bumper sticker worth procuring.

Retraction

2004-06-18T14:31:00.000-04:00

It is wrong to call Karthik a sanctimonious twit in regards to my post debunking his praise for Gorbachev. I apologize and retract statements to that effect.

The sound of imminent destruction

2004-06-18T02:55:00.000-04:00

From the outside: a new Club for Growth ad airing on national cable and in a few spot markets directly compares Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to John Kerry.

To wit: The ad dredges up a sound bite from Kerry's 1971 testimony on Capitol Hill, where Kerry says 'We cannot fight communism all over the world . . . ' and then plays Ronald Reagan's 'Tear Down This Wall' sound bite from 1987.

The final sound bite: President Bush, on the pile at the World Trade Center site, telling firefighters, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from us all of us soon." It ends with a recapitulation of what Kerry said in 1971 and displays in chyron: "John Kerry. Wrong then, Wrong now."

Kerfuffle

2004-06-17T02:56:00.000-04:00

Industrial Production Surged Last Month

Confirming recent progress in the manufacturing sector flying in the face of John Kerry's pessimism and misery tour, industrial production surged 1.1 percent last month:

Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities surged in May, posting its biggest gain in almost six years, the Federal Reserve reported Wednesday.
The Fed said industrial production rose a larger-than-expected 1.1 percent in May after a 0.8 percent gain in April. The May increase was the biggest since a 2.0 percent rise in August 1998.

While the Fed said "unseasonably warm weather" caused utilities output to surge, the gain in overall production was broad-based and reflected the continued revival in the U.S. factory sector, which began declining ahead of the 2001 recession.

"The numbers show the manufacturing sector has very solid forward momentum," said Anthony Karydakis, senior financial economist with Banc One Capital Markets in Chicago.

The body is cold.

2004-06-17T02:50:00.000-04:00

A Comment on Reagan
Or rather, several.

First of all, while Reagan's death is a tragedy, he's been close to dead for years now.

Good thing you didn't have your way with him the way you tried with Terri Schiavo.

The country had already accepted that Reagan was gone, and the mourning for someone who's already been gone for years is not the mourning for someone who was vibrantly alive into their deaths.
And saying this is not insulting Reagan, and not saying people didn't like him, but simply stating the truth.

What?

Secondly, I find it interesting that Ronald Reagan Jr., Reagan's son, hates W with a passion. Or, as he says, "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."

So he supports Kerry?

Hello? Is this thing on?

I can't imagine Nancy's a big fan, either, at least based on Bush's position on stem cell research (I've always wondered: why aren't all the anti-stem cell research people also anti-in vitro? After all, it also results in plenty of wasted zygotes, humans in their terms).

Bush's position is the compromise between willy nilly and no research at all. What was Clinton's position?

Thirdly, to all the people who can't stop writing Reagan hagiographies: remember Iran contra? Where he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund guerillas in Nicaragua? Yes, those Iranians. But it's alright, because the Iranians having weapons stopped the Iraqis from becoming too powerful with their weapons. Which, um, Reagan gave them, too (Picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein, anyone?). The Reagan presidency was not all sunshine and happiness. In fact, it was far from perfect.

So...he balanced two dictators off each other. Why is that bad? Isn't that what FDR did to Hitler and Stalin and Nixon to Mao and Brezhnev? I think that's a good thing.

Another thing - are you sure the weapons worked?

But for a balanced view on some of Reagan's policies, and a comparison of his to those of our current President (how are you going to pay for that tax cut? with another, bigger tax cut!), read Paul Krugman's excellent article.

Which has been debunked already.

The hobgoblin of little minds

2004-06-17T02:40:00.000-04:00

Ah ha! An Out!

That is very insightful.

I mean, come on. It makes me sad when I have to say that Scalia (ugh) made the most honorable decision on a case (he abstained because he'd commented on the manner publicly).

You're right. 88% of the SCOTUS is out to get you. So are 92% of Americans...

The problem is that "under god" is a hard issue to touch, but it's so obviously and blatantly unconstitutional that an easy out like this one is the only out for justices of conscience.

hmm...unconstitutional. Funny...

Let's try a little basic law. To bring a lawsuit in a court you have to have standing. Oh, you don't have that if you're a minor...and if you're not the Guardian. Game, set, match, right?

Not that justices of conscience should be taking an out, but oh well.

But this isn't a real out, because it's a poor ruling. Don't take my word for it, read Scrivener's Error, a blog written by a Real Lawyer, who explains in legal speak why the ruling is incorrect.

Capitalize Lawyer but not God. Let's see what Scrivener says:

"Leaving aside the dubious neglect to ask the child what her wishes are..."

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that the child is a child (tautology alert) and, therefore, the Guardian (the mother) is the one who will have to stand if there is such a case. The mother decided no. Tough cookies.

Wait a minute, you say. Obviously and blatantly unconstitutional? Absolutely.

How? Unsubstantiated allegation.

If you don't think it's an issue, just imagine you have a daughter (or a son, but let's assume daughter so I don't have to worry about pronouns). Now imagine you're an atheist.

So you're under 10% of Americans.

Just try it for a minute, I know it might be hard, but we're people too.

Who are trying to establish your religion - nihilism as the official religion of the United States.

Now imagine that your young daughter goes to school every day, and every morning she hears her teacher and all her classmates say "under god".

Imagine if your daughter hears the English language, or mathematics.

So what do you do? Are you an understanding parent, who tells her it's ok to say it, possibly planting the seeds for future indoctrination?

I'd be a tolerant person who stands on the convictions of their argument, not an intolerant bigot...

Or are you a strict parent, cruelly forbidding her from saying it to stand up for your principles, making her feel left out? And will she even obey you if you do forbid her?

My guess is Teddy leans towards intolerance and bigotry.

Or, if it's too hard to imagine you're an atheist, imagine you're a Christian (hell, statistics say you probably are) but the pledge contains the words "under Allah," or "under Zeus". Are you okay with that?

Sure. Obviously, pluralism isn't your strong suit.

You (if you disagree with me) need to accept the fact that not everyone believes in "god",

Just enough to make a law. If you disagree, go write a law. You need a majority in both houses and the support of the President.

and you need to understand that I'm not attacking your religion.

You are trying to abolish my God and replace it with a nihilistic creed.

Believe in god. Believe this nation is under god. Believe this nation is under Cthulu, I don't care, believe what you want, and teach your kids about it all you want. But don't stuff it down my throat, and certainly don't try to stuff it down my (hypothetical) kid's throat. Not having the words "under god" in the official pledge doesn't harm your religion, doesn't stop you from practicing it in any way.

Intolerance and bigotry

Besides, the words "under god" ruin the rhythm of the pledge.

I'm sorry it's not aesthetically pleasing to you. Would it be better if it was in Russian?

And they're a legacy of McCarthyism, a part of this country's history we'd all like to erase (or at least, all reasonable people would).

Because, you know, Communists never penetrated this Government.

Ra!

2004-06-17T02:24:00.000-04:00

I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts, Deedly Deedly...

Is there a little something odd about Karthik saying Deedly Deedly?

The end of the mourning period for the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, a sort of leader of the province of Lau, Fiji, will be commemorated by the plaiting of the magimagi, a term that translates roughly to "coconut fiber."

Plait forth.

Due to the popularity and importance of this Tui Nayau (roughly translated as "governor"), the magimagi will be made with 3000 coconuts involving four to six people; usually, only one or two people are involved in plaiting a 100-200 coconut magimagi.

Let me be the first, therefore, to urge Americans of all ages and walks of life to join together to lift our great nation out of its mourning for the late president Ronald Reagan by plaiting an enormous magimagi, made with at least 100,000 coconuts and utilizing the hard work of 2,000 people, slaving day and night only on this task. Truly, only such a great work will show this nation's love for our fortieth president.

We capitalize President.

Aside from that, it has already been done before.

I'm absolutely serious.

This idea makes plenty of sense.

More sense than Reagan replacing FDR on the dime, at least.

Because FDR had his plaiters work overtime.

Since you, the reader, are obviously interested enough in this idea to keep on reading, I would like to propose an addendum to this idea: only top Republican law-makers, neocons, and Ann Coulter be allowed to create this magimagi.

Ahem.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That way, Republicans will be able to get plenty of PR and bragging rights later on, and Democrats can govern the country more effectively.

Yes.

Oh, and Ann Coulter will finally shut up for a while.

Silence your opponent?

A coat of whitewash. No, make that two.

2004-06-17T02:13:00.000-04:00

June 12, 2004

And the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor Goes to…

Mikhail Gorbachev once remarked that Ronald Reagan was extremely instrumental in ending the Cold War, and that he was probably also the whole reason the Cold War ended so peacefully.

Funny, so did Margaret Thatcher and countless other world leaders...Let's go to Gorbachev's words:

"Reagan was a staunch conservative. So for him, coming from that background, it was easier to make the move towards us and meet us halfway. Someone else might not have been able to do it. And the chance could have been lost."

That someone else? The Jew hating Peanut Farmer.

Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt: Gorbachev was an unabashed flatterer who used his charm and wit

Hold right there. Gorbachev was an unabashed flatterer? Let's just look at his resume.

I see member of the Supreme Soviet, Presidium of the USSR. Flatterer? No, just an unfounded assertion...

as best as he could to end an arms race that he knew was just as destructive to his people as the repression of the communist state was.

That is an amazing coat of whitewash.

Gorbachev truly believed in communism,

...
just as destructive to his people as the repression of the communist state was....
charm and wit ...

but he also believed in two things more: political, economic,

His defense team drew up a plan, later expanded into National Security Decision Directive 11-82, that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end." The objective was to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."

and social reform that would serve the people more ably than the previous emphasis on state, called perestroika; and greater openness and transparency for the people about what was going on, called glasnost.

"I had a meeting in Moscow with Marshal Ogarkov, the chief of staff of the Soviet Armed Forces. And he said, 'You know, all modern military capability is based on the computer. You have little kids in America 3 years old who know how to deal with computers! It takes years here to train Soviet recruits in the military to use them because they've never used them before. We're afraid of computers! If we start deploying computers, it's going to mean loss of political control for the Soviet leadership.'"

Thus, again, Reagan was right.

Gorbachev needed a way to end the Cold War so that he could help his people get on with their lives.

Really? So what about Brezhnev and the predecessors of Gorbachev?

I believe you are making a fundamental error in your assumptions - you are not mentioning how and why Gorbachev rose to power. You are placing more good will in the dictator of the Soviet Union than the American President.

He saw that strength, or the façade thereof, was far too costly too his people, so he decided to give "weakness," as Neocons call it, a chance.

So..if we understand Karthik's history lesson correctly, weakness will lead to the dissolution of America, the breaking away of states and our collapse in world circles.

In 1985, he offered a unilateral moratorium on nuclear arms testing; unfortunately, Reagan and his administration thought this was a scam and didn't rise to it.

Because you know how you can trust those Soviets.

Karthik, you are transcending naivete and moving towards aiding an enemy of the United States.

Gorbachev then decided to try to implement a plan that would rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000; again, Reagan didn't bite.

The zero-pledge in Europe came from the Reagan camp. It's good to see that you botched history on that one. This became the INF Treaty. Notice how the substantive moves towards nuclear disarmament are taking place under Reagan.

Then came the Reykjavik Summit, when Gorbachev offered another plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons in exchange for the US pledging support and abandoning its "Star Wars" program. There was ample reason for Reagan to be suspicious about this,

I thought you just said we could trust the Soviets. Again, you are wrong.

but the tantrum he threw,

Who appointed you to be the arbiter of what is acceptable moral behavor and what is not?

storming out of the Summit without offering anything in return to Gorbachev's plan,

We offered him to go back to Moscow and take his plans with him. That is calling the bluff - obviously you are not familiar with it.

only got Reagan the disdain of the world.

Look at what it was worth.

Reagan, it seemed, was too suspicious and paranoid to give peace a chance.

Yes. As you know from being alive, it didn't work.

Interesting to note must be how Gorbachev was holding up under internal pressures.

You mean how he failed to hold up under internal pressures?

The Strategic Defense Initiative-colloquially known as "Star Wars"-made more than a few Kremliners nervous,

Oddly, that’s not the way the Russians see it. Says Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to Leonid Brezhnev, "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that you won the Cold War because of your president’s insistence on SDI," the Strategic Defense Initiative, as Star Wars was formally called. Grofimenko marvels that the Nobel Peace Prize went to "the greatest flimflam man of all time," Mikhail Gorbachev, while Western intellectuals ignore Reagan -- who, he says, "was tackling world gangsters of the first order of magnitude."

KGB Gen. Nikolai Leonev also admitted that the much maligned SDI actually worked, as intended even if it didn't work as advertised.

(SDI) "played a powerful psychological role, It underlined still more our technological backwardness."

and Gorbachev's continual gambits for peace must have seemed as rational as a hammer made of chocolate.

Metaphor alert.

There of course, lies the central point: Gorbachev still had vast armies, powerful weapons, and a secret police as repressive as any Orwellian could dream of.

And you whitewash him. What does that say about your moral fibre?

Yet, even though he had the option of continuing the Soviet state of business, he decided the Cold War had gone on long enough.

He did? In a pique of good will he decided to cave to America? Where do you see this? Cite it.

To say that it was Reagan's aggressive overtures that forced Gorbachev's hand is false;

Obviously. I mean, isn't it obvious that Reagan failed to end the Cold War?

after all, there had been arms races before,

The arms race is but a small part of it, you twit. The other part was that we decided to roll back Communism in the Americas and in Central Asia. This is the difference between Truman, Eisenhower, et. al. and Reagan...

and the Soviet economy had always been pitifully weak next to the US economy.

Ahem.

John Kenneth Galbraith, the distinguished Harvard economist, wrote in l984: “That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene?One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets?and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops?Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower.”

Doubtless, a five-year plan would have helped keep the Soviets afloat. However, for Gorbachev, that price was too high.

Doubtless? I doubt it.

Somehow, it all worked out. During Reykjavik, Gorbachev decided that Reagan was a man whom he could work with to end the Cold War.

I'm sorry, but this is farking insane.

In the end, both sides kind of got what they wanted: Gorbachev got his democratic elections and reforms,

When did he say he wanted that?

though he lost power as a result; and Reagan was able to rest peacefully for the remainder of his life knowing that what he considered the greatest threat to the free world had been dissolved.

Amen.

There is no doubt that Reagan would have not been able to have done anything without Gorbachev: had Konstantin Chernenko had lived longer, had Yuri Andropov had better kidneys, Reagan's aggression might have ended in disaster.

Reagan's aggression might have ended in disaster.

Yet, to be fair, if Gorbachev had been opposite a man with Kennedy's penchant for machoism, or Nixon's hard-liner approach, he might not have been able to ensure that the dissolution of his empire happened peacefully. Without the one, the other would not have been able to make history.

Sanctimonious twit or unsupported/unsound judgment. You make the call.

As we remember and mourn the loss of a man who did what he truly thought would help America, and as we thank him for his concessions and softening towards, it helps to remember these things, that we may admire the man for the great things he actually did instead of putting him on a pedestal and taking him away from who he was. The two were partners in peace, and at their time, the two greatest actors on the stage of the world.

Yes. The American one a little better.

Do your part to win one for the Gipper!

2004-06-16T19:12:00.000-04:00

WorldNetDaily reports that the Heritage Foundation's TownHall.com has started a new fad by urging readers to "Shine your headlights to commemorate [Ronald] Reagan's 'shining city.' "

WND elaborates: " 'Ronald Reagan always talked about his beloved "shining city on a hill," ' said Bob Just, a veteran talk-show host, WorldNetDaily columnist and self-proclaimed 'Reagan Democrat.' 'So, let's shine our headlights from now until Independence Day. Let's give Ronald Reagan one more July 4th with the people who love him.' "

It's definitely catching on. " 'There was an instant response in Las Vegas when WorldNetDaily posted the original article,' said WND's Executive News Editor Joe Kovacs, who observed up to 40 percent of drivers illuminating their headlights in daylight hours."

That's nothing. We were out last night in New York City--hardly a Republican stronghold--and nearly 100% of the vehicles we saw had their headlights on. Even taxis and municipal buses! Not only do people love Ronald Reagan, they also support the war in Iraq. It's enough to make any patriotic American's heart swell with pride.

Hat Tip: OpinionJournal.com