No amount of the hydrogen-PC isotope could keep the USOC's elcubo-skin balloon Humble Jingoist afloat, as evidenced by its post launch-attempt statement.
- USOC Statement
Statement regarding U.S. athletes celebrating with the American flag in Athens
By Jim Scherr // USOC Chief Executive // May 18, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2004
Statement From United States Olympic Committee Chief Executive Jim Scherr Regarding U.S. Athletes Celebrating with the American Flag at the Athens Olympic And Paralympic Games
"The United States Olympic Committee wants to make it absolutely clear that we have not -- and will not -- instruct our athletes to refrain from waving the United States flag during the upcoming Athens Olympic and Paralympic Games. Any suggestions or statements to the contrary do not reflect the official position of our organization.
Athletes will be free, as always, to celebrate their performances in an exuberant, respectful way during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We will remind our athletes that they are guests of the Olympic movement, Greece, and the city of Athens and to be good ambassadors of our country, their communities, families and sports. We want our athletes to be champions who conduct themselves with class and, if it is the case, to lose with grace and dignity. Additionally, we are reminding them to treat the United States flag with the respect it deserves.
One of the proudest moments of my life was to put on my USA warm-up and represent my country at the 1988 Olympic Games. I know our athletes feel the same way today and we will not in any way infringe upon that honor.
Accomplishments of athletes and teams such as the 1980 United States Olympic Hockey Team, the great Billy Mills, swimming legend Janet Evans and countless others have inspired our nation. We are certain that the athletes who represent the United States at the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games will do the same."
Contrast that with lead balloon no. 1—Mike Moran, former spokesman and current athlete-behavior consultant for the United States Olympic Committee:
What I am trying to do with the athletes and coaches is to suggest to them that they consider how the normal things they do at an event, including the Olympics, might be viewed as confrontational or insulting or cause embarrassment....
Unfortunately, using the flag as a prop or a piece of apparel or indulging in boasting behavior is becoming part of our society in sport because every night on TV we see our athletes—professional, college or otherwise—taunting their opponents and going face-to-face with each other.
We are trying for 17 days to break that culture. What I am telling the athletes is, 'Don't run over and grab a flag and take it round the track with you.' It's not business as usual for American athletes. If a Kenyan or a Russian grabs their national flag and runs round the track or holds it high over their heads, it might not be viewed as confrontational. Where we are in the world right now, an American athlete doing that might be viewed in another manner.
(via Charles Johnson, "US Athletes Told to Cool it at Olympics," Little Green Footballs, May 16, 2004); and with lead balloon no. 2—Bill Martin, acting president of the United States Olympic Committee:
We are not the favourite kid in the room as a country. We are sensitive to the issue of flaunting and jingoism in its raw sense. This is going to be a tough Games for us as a country.
(via DeoDuce, "More Ridiculous and Other Matter," The Daily Spork, May 29, 2004).
Rule 1: Our team only has to reach the goal line to score a touchdown, but yours has to go past it, into the parking lot, down the road, onto the highway, into the next town, hop aboard a spaceship, land on the moon and reach the goal line inside an atmospheric-domed stadium that won't even be built for another thirty years, before we'll admit you scored one.
“R ules are meant to be broken and the laws don't apply to everybody.” This famed liberal mantra is at the heart of every response by reactionaries in the We the Haters of the United States of America kookoo-brainedom™ to news after news after news that we've found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (from "you haven't found any WMDs whatsoever, so you lied!" to "you've only found one, so you lied!" to "you've only found a couple of pre-Gulf War ones, so you lied!" to "you haven't found any significant stockpiles of any, so you lied!" etc.) and that there indeed was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the war ("there wasn't any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda whatsoever—they hated each other—so you lied!" to "it's all just 'a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda,' so you lied!" etc. etc.).
Liberals have repeatedly been wrong on both the issue of Iraq really having actual weapons of mass destruction right before the war and that of Saddam Hussein really having actual connections with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network as far back as 1998.
So much for the willingness of Ostrichcrats and other anti-America liberals to actually support any real deals during this war.
(Last link via Betsy's Page; penultimate one via Amf, "Sarin gas discovered in Iraq," America's Debate, May 17 2004, 06:41 PM.)
Overtly adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort, is always something ugly to witness.
When Mount Goritoba erupts
with more than mere bile.
(Original photograph and link via Rachel Lucas, via Emperor Darth Misha I.)
First in a series of not so creative things you can do with your waffles. (Please do try this at home.)
A s a wee Ch-ch-children™, one of my first discoveries was how much fun it is to fling things. Toys, leaves, small pebbles, kittens, you name it. Anything unfortunate enough to find its way into my clutches was twice, often three times more fun if it was flung.
Now I never once got around to flinging any waffles; and for this I feel my childhood was somehow robbed the full package of fun it could have had. Nevertheless, although being wrongfully deprived this activity may give the impression that it was less than completely fulfilling, I don't blame my parents for their stubborn refusal to keep a constant stockpile of waffles in our refrigerator. Looking back I realize they must have harbored a deep-seated prejudice against them over pancakes. Nor do I blame society or the government either, since it wasn't their job to establish anything like a Bureau of Waffles for making sure that every child in America always had a readily flingable supply close by. Had I been born into some rich family in Colorado, or liked putting qetchup on my waffles instead of syrup, I might have had a lot more than I did. Not being able to eat all of them I might have thought: "These extra waffles on my plate will just go to waste if I don't eat them all. But I can't because I'm stuffed and already have much more than my tummy could ever hold. So instead of just tossing them in the garbage (which doesn't sound like much fun at all) why not see if these babies will put my $1,000 gold-leafed, ruby-enameled, diamond-encrusted Frisbee® to shame?" And thus the fun idea of tossing around waffles could've been discovered right then and there.
But it's never too late to capture fun.
One politician who bythewayservedinVietNam likes to fling things too because, after all, it's a very fun thing to do. However, in his case it wasn't just waffles, but these strange medals that are shaped like ribbons and, coincidentally enough, weird-shaped ribbons that look a whole lot like medals. Plus his system of flinging has a distinct advantage: You don't even have to really own the things you're flinging. As if there really were a U.S. Department of Flingable Waffles, Ribbons, and Medals handing out free things to each and every American for them to fling. Like an entitlement of sorts.
So do your government and your fellow citizens a real favor. Whenever your have a stack of waffles on your plate which you simply can't eat, don't throw them in the trash where they can be taken away to clog up our landfills. Do the right and patriotic thing. Give them all a good toss. Not only is it fun, but it'll help save the environment.
Speaking of flingable things (my apologies to John Masefield):
- Poll Fever
I must go down in the polls again, in the Newsweek poll cited by K. Rover,
And all I ask is a handful of waffles and a fence to fling them over,
And the flip's flop and the flop's flip and the policy stances' stinking,
And a new shot for this long face, and a new hope sinking.
I must go down in the polls again, where my call for a running mate
Is the first call on the Do-Not-Call lists of "friends" who sense my fate;
And all I ask is one floppy disc when all my "plans" need storing,
And the French vote and Kim Jong Il's too and leave the independents snoring.
I must go down in the polls again, in spite of how much I've lied,
In an election loss I see looming closer toward a 50-state landslide;
And all I ask is a family SUV with neither ding nor dint on,
And long restful drives someplace far away after I'm replaced by H.R. Qlinton.
And he says "it sounds Grrrrrrrrreat!"
| ELECTION NEWS: | | · | Kerry Won't Delay Accepting Nomination | | · | Poll Shows Voters Prefer Bush at Barbecue | | · | Kerry Seeks More Homeland Funds | | · | Election Worries Civil Rights Groups | | · | Kerry Holds Big Lead Over Bush in California | | · | Ohio Voters Could Hold Key to White House | | |
Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities
[ AOL link ]
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, Ye Olde Fork Tongues
Inside This StoryJump Below:· Compare the Candidates · AOL Member Quotes Talk About It: Post | Chat
Who would do a better job with Iraq? | | Bush | 54% | | Kerry | 46% |
Can you distinguish between the candidates' stances on Iraq? | | Yes | 86% | | No | 14% |
| Total Votes: 104,797 | | Note on Poll Results |
WASHINGTON, May 25 — When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day to distinguish between President Bush's prescription and that of Senator John Kerry.
E r...no it's not.
So says, too, the hundred thousand folks who've read this inkwaste and decided to respond to your own poll.
They still differ on some details,
Try almost every detail. Granted, they do both call that country over there "Iraq." And they both printed their respective plans in English. (For sake of argument, we'll pretend that Qerry's ramblings constitute "a plan.") But that's as far as any sharing of substantive details between the two go.
...and Mr. Kerry continues to assert that Mr. Bush has lost so much credibility around the world that only a new president can rally other nations to provide the necessary assistance, a point he made Tuesday while campaigning in Oregon.
"Around the world," in Modern Liberalese (and its backward dialect QerrySpeak), means from the Pyrenees Mountains eastward until you reach the western border of Poland. Known around the real world as Irrelevantland™.
OK, al-Qerry, you seriously think that "rallying" the few remaining nations who aren't already strongly standing with us in this war (47 at last count) is going to somehow help us? How would we go about getting those last three "major" holdouts to change their minds now? By our caving in to France's demands that we don't harm a hair on any terrorist's widdle head until we have 17+ more Security Council resolutions expressly authorizing us to massage his follicles with a good scalp rub (but no further!), and then only after there have been 13+ additional years of ineffectual sanctions? By our bribing Germany and Russian with exclusive rights to lucrative oil contracts in Iraq? What makes you believe even those things would get any of these three nations to actually help us the way the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Australia, Turkey, Philippines, Poland, Netherlands, South Korea, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Colombia, Romania, Panama, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Angola, Albania, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Eritrea, El Salvador, Uganda, Ukraine, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, the Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Tonga, and Afghanistan are helping us now?
Sounds like what you want us to do, Hanoi John, is tow whatever lines France, Germany, and Russia set down for us so we can get them to commit about 50 troops and a few tanks each. What makes you think you'll have any better luck with these three obstinate weasels who are envious of our country and all we've accomplished without their so-called help? Your ability to speak fluent French? Pull-leeez.
But as became evident with Mr. Bush's latest speech on Iraq on Monday night, which followed a detailed speech Mr. Kerry gave on Iraq's future one month ago, the broad outlines of their approaches are more alike than not.
"Detailed"? Let's take a look at what the UBLPAC-backed candidate actually said.
Following Qerry's bald lie that President Bush "declared 'mission accomplished'" (he didn't; although our president did say:
- Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
which were the only two times he used the word "mission" and not in the context of it being accomplished), and Qerry's second lie that "it is not a time for blame" (that's all Hanoi John ever does with his "this administration has failed" TBL—a word he repeated eleven more times just in this one speech), he finally presents his wonderful "details" more lies:
Such as "we cannot depend on a US-only presence" (see list of 47 countries above) but must "build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China" (UK - check; those "other nations" - see list of weasels above; China - giving it more secret satellite-guidance technology like Traitor Qlinton did is probably the only way you'll ever get it to "join in this mission"). Next, Qerry wants our "US-only" coalition to install an "international High Commissioner" (à la East Timor—talk about failure!), while imposing some larger foreign military presence across Iraq (that's bound to show the Iraqis we aren't occupying them), and request beg the UN, would it pretty-please "provide the necessary legitimacy" for it all. That's not, Qerry admits, the total final solution for Iraq. Even more foreign military forces, including those from NATO, will be headed for Iraq. ("Siddiq, I thought we were liberated from military rule." "Just wave your tiny French flag at these passing tanks, Dhakwan, and be quiet.")
After we "personally reach out" to NATO members, they'll feel they "have been treated with respect" and will happily send another slew of occupying troops. (Yay for the "liberated" Iraqis!) But al-Qerry wants us to ease them in at first before we really "open the door" for some real heavy-duty occupying. Of course we'd be "ending the sense of an American occupation" but starting the sense of a massive, UN protectorate-type one. (Yay for Siddiq and Dhakwan!)
Meanwhile, back at the High Commissioner's ranch overpriced cushy office, this "highly regarded" guy (or gal) will be "charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction." Not even Saddam had so much power. ("Keep waving, Dhakwan.") Since he'll (or she'll) have "the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people" she'll (or he'll) be working with everyone in sight to make sure that Iraq is moving "on the path toward[sic] sovereignty." (Forget that June 30th, business, Dhakwan. It's not like our nation gave you her word of honor or anything.)
As his/her Highness the Commissioner is passing out select oil contracts to Germany, France, Russia, and China, the new and expanded version of Iraq Occupation, Inc. will be training and providing "backup" for Iraq's soldiers and "policemen" (that's sexist Qerry's word).
Any more "details"? (Nope, we're done.)
That is particularly true as Mr. Bush moves toward giving the United Nations more authority, a move long advocated by Mr. Kerry.
It's always safe to assume that whatever al-Qerry has "long advocated" in the past is not the same thing he's advocating today or will be advocating tomorrow or, for that matter, even in the same speech. This "more UN authority" stuff flies dead in the Botox-laden face of his "security force...clearly under US command" and his requiring that the HC "should be directed to work with"—i.e., limited by the decisions of—non-UN "participants." So much for having any real powers. But if reporters Nagourney and Stevenson want to deem this "giving the United Nations more authority," who am I to argue with employees of Jayson Blair's former funland?
They both support the June 30 deadline for the beginning of the transition to civilian power.
No, they don't. Bush Administration officials say that if the Iraqi government ever wishes us to be gone on or after July 1, then we will leave. That's what normal people mean by respecting a country's "sovereignty." In al-Qerry's parallel universe, that word means a kind of process that you're ensuring you continue to move forward on a path toward, never quite actually getting there. Nowhere near the same thing, Nagourney and Stevenson.
They both say they would support an increase in United States troop strength, if necessary.
Again, no. President Bush has said that if our military commanders there in the field request more troops, he'll approve that request because he trusts their judgment. (Unlike the way Johnson tried to micromanage Viet Nam.) Bearded Spock Beardless Lurch, on the other hand, says he wants more troops there no matter what they request.
Neither has supported a deadline for removing United States troops.
In the sense that Hanoi John never really supported them going over there to begin with, this is technically true. Sure, there are—not one—but two reporters from Ye Olde Fork Tongues writing this stuff. Even so, it doesn't take a foreign policy expert to say how utterly stupid that would be announcing to our enemies how we'll be leaving on such and such a date, whether or not our job there is done. It shouldn't even take what passes for brainmatter in some reporters' heads that neither has supported equally stupid stuff like bungee jumping without a cord. But any more sentences like the one above and people may start to wonder.
Mr. Bush's gradual shift away from what many Democrats have long denounced as a go-it-alone stance is an adjustment to the surge in violence in Iraq, as well as the deterioration of domestic support for the occupation in the wake of the prison abuse scandal.
But there also is clearly a political component at play here, as the White House seeks, while managing its own problems, to create a predicament for Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent. Mr. Kerry this week is beginning a series of speeches in which he will lay out some of his most detailed foreign policy pronouncements.
Going it alone with 47 other nations has kept a more than expected surge from erupting into some "plunge into full-scale civil war" which Dhimmicrats and their media accomplices have been predicting, expecting and hoping for since Day 1. As far as domestic support goes, no doubt the constant negative, gloomy drumbeat of only the bad news out of Iraq from that media, and not a peep at all about the already abundant and increasing amount of good things going on there every day, will eventually make people wonder too why "our side's" reporters are sounding a lot more like Al Jazeera's these days than usual. Incentive enough to turn to actual fair and balanced news sources to find out what all is really happening in Iraq.
On the Issues| Kerry | TROOPS | Bush | | "We must supply our military commanders with the additional troops they have requested." -- April 17 speech Read More | | "If [the U.S. needs] more troops, I will send them." -- May 24 speech Read More | Audio: Hear It |
Before last week no one but Diddlecrats were requesting screaming at the top of their moonbatitis-filled lungs for any additional troops. When our military commanders asked that week for the transfer of 3,600 American troops from South Korea to Iraq, their request was immediately approved.
|
INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT | | "NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June." -- Campaign statement Read More
Watch Video: Kerry's Policy | | "At the [the NATO summit] we will discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy." -- May 24 speech |
Another whopping difference. Al-Qerry wants an agreement in place before the summit even begins. How about that for our going it alone without hearing what our allies have to say first? Kinda invalidates the point of even having a summit, wouldn't you think? What kind of leadership is that? Likely not the kind of tone you want to set for any summit, going into it the way Hanoi John's prescribing. Unless you really don't care about having a productive summit.
The only similarity here is an acronym.
|
IRAQ SECURITY | | | "The creation of viable Iraqi security forces - military and police - is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces." -- Campaign statement Read More | | "Eventually, [Iraq's military, police, and border forces] must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn." -- May 24 speech
Audio: Hear More |
Those "other international forces" in al-Qerry's stance include French, German, Russian, and Chinese "peacekeepers." Don't remember seeing their names on the "US-only" coalition's goitalone, 47-nation list.
The fact that Mr. Bush has moved close to Mr. Kerry on some of these questions...
Wait. What's this "some" business? You've been saying all along "the fact is" their two plans are almost completely identical except for a few minor variations regarding the word "France." (President Bush usually likes to just use the acronym CESM.)
...makes it much more difficult for Mr. Kerry to take advantage of what Democrats and Republicans view as the biggest political crisis of Mr. Bush's presidency,
Three thousand Americans and other nationals being slaughtered in under two hours by throat-cutting terrorist hijackers who destroyed two of our nation's tallest buildings and one wing of our Pentagon—and almost the White House and/or Capitol too—cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a big crisis, political or otherwise, of anyone's presidency. Nonetheless, if he'd caved into the terrorists, and asked over and over again "why do they hate us? what did we do wrong?" like Dhimmicrats and other liberals did, there's no doubt it would've been a supersized political crisis for him and all those in our government real quick. Not that this would've lasted long, to be sure. His impeachment in the House and subsequent conviction in the Senate would've sailed right through the Congress in record time. The only concern afterwards would be who President Cheney would nominate as Vice President.
...by emphasizing differences between them. Mr. Kerry is left to argue that while both men have similar ideas about what to do,
(Sigh)
...he has more credibility to do it, given the breakdown in relations between Mr. Bush and many world leaders over Iraq.
France hates us. Germany hates us. Russia just dislikes us a little. Oh, yeah, Belgium really, really hates us. As everyone knows, those four nations are "everybody." Yet Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry speaks fluent French, and probably likes cheese, and definitely likes waffles, and maybe even cuckoo clocks. So that's three of those four he can show his "credibility" to (not that they'd be interested in actually seeing it). Now all he has to do is start drinking copious amounts of Vodka and we'd be all set because no one ever again will make us feel insecure about how, somewhere, some of them might somehow ever, ever hate us.
You want to know real hate. Find and play the Nick Berg video and listen to those "Allah Akbars" before and after the real haters silenced his screams. Listen to the trembling voice of the flight attendant calling from that hijacked plane and describing how one of the passengers was lying dead in the aisle with his throat cut—or her "I see water and buildings...Oh my God, Oh my God" before she too was silenced.
Then try to compare that to the so-called hate emanating from a few envious former allies who let us down (not the other way around) when we needed their help the most to ensure that Saddam Hussein would no longer ever be a threat or hindrance to us in any way as we hunted down and completely destroyed all our terrorist enemies, including the ones he supported. These former friends, whose native soil is literally filled with many, many times more fallen young American men and women who fought and died liberating their countries from another brutal dictatorship, than all the brave defenders of our freedoms who've sacrified everything for our own and another people's liberty, have no justification whatsoever for "hating" us. Anyone who says he's concerned about whether they hate us or not is only trying to find a justification for that hatred himself.
Mr. Kerry has negotiated the shifting sands of Iraq for more than a year now. Some Democrats said that their candidate would just as soon stand back and not engage Mr. Bush on the war, allowing the president to struggle with setbacks, while avoiding making himself a target should Mr. Bush attempt to suggest that he is not supporting the troops.
That's right, Qerry. Offer nothing constructive, Just more of those "this administration has faileds," while those in your own party who would despise you, except for their need to use you in their AnyoneButBush campaign, wring their hands over how they might get away with replacing you with a "more viable" candidate at the first opportune moment. That's what your party stands for. Beat Bush! "We will win! We will win!" it shouted, and "Fritz! Fritz!" at the memorial service of another senator whose own words, sadly, no one in your party's leadership seems to want to hear anymore:
- Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about improving people's lives.
The only positive thing that can be said about his death now is that he is no longer here to witness what your party—the one he loved and devoted himself and his passion for doing right to—has become in its final, ugly years.
So sit back. Enjoy this media driven ride. Just don't expect any of them to come to your rescue after they plunge your car off the bridge and leave you struggling for air as they swim off and let you finally drown.
Kerry asserted that it would take a new president to... re-establish battered relations with former allies. But as Mr. Kerry is well aware, there is a growing antiwar segment of the American electorate. And there is likely to be an antiwar candidate on the ballot, in the person of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who has called for an withdrawal of American forces.
In another sign of the complication Mr. Kerry faces, Al Gore, one of the party's severest critics of the war, is to deliver a speech in New York on Wednesday that is expected to call for the dismissal of top administration officials and assert that Americans have been put at risk at home and abroad by Mr. Bush's foreign policy. (See Story From AP)
Now how did The Slimes get advance notice of what was in Gore's speech? Yeah, silly question. Letting it know he's going to bash our president and call for the resignation of practically his entire cabinet, as well as speak out against a war we're right in the middle of trying to win (albeit the New Yuk Times isn't really hoping that we do because that might shine too much of a spotlight on the futility of its beatbush! series of reports), was the only way Gore could pique its interest enough for it to finally send someone to cover one of his speeches. Being that its anti-win the war editorial policy nicely matches up with his own now, and all.
"He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground, which is that we need more troops," said one adviser who Mr. Kerry relies on heavily. "And the internal debates have often been between the camps in the campaign who want a clear break from the Bush policy and those who want to portray Bush as largely incompetent in executing what strategy they had."
Such a positive message! Voters surely will be falling all over themselves flocking to it.
How about this: Send in 200,000 French troops and give them a timetable of 10 days to surrender to the first Iraqi military patrol they stumble across. The new Iraqi army can show its sovereign militariness and the French their incomparable surrenderingness all at the same time.
Mr. Kerry's advisers minimized the extent to which Mr. Bush's shifts had made him less vulnerable to criticism on Iraq, and disputed the notion that Mr. Kerry has not, or could not, draw differences with the president on this issue. And they noted a series of recent polls that show both a drop in support for the occupation of Iraq and concern over whether Mr. Bush has a plan to end it, arguing that the issue was more of a problem for Mr. Bush than it was for Mr. Kerry.
Messrs. Nagourney and Stevenson must have interviewed these advisors before our president's speech. Still, they found all that beatbush! strategizing fascinating fantasizing.
You Said It
T2 Farmer Says:
"We need to stay the course that President Bush has laid out for Iraq." "John Kerry as a Democratic candidate for president has said more about how to fix Iraq than the sitting president, the commander-in-chief, the person who lead the nation into this war," said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kerry advisor.
(Misstephanie Miscutter, misyou misforgot misa misprefix missomewhere misin misthere.)
Want to "fix Iraq" and good? Just turn everything we've accomplished so far—like getting electricity running throughout the country and refurbishing the rest of its economic infrastructure—over to an inept, corrupt, Sex-for-Food starved UN, and see how long before it all goes back to pot. Or allow some international, interagency, interceding, interposing nightmare of an ineffectual force—whose complexities would make Hilldabeast's Healthscare network of intermingled bureaucracies look streamlined—roam about the countryside for a few months and the Iraqi people will be pleading for the much simpler form of brutality of their former dictatorship.
In a speech last month, Mr. Kerry said the goal of the United States should be to bring about "a stable, free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders." That position is broadly indistinguishable from that of Mr. Bush.
It's also broadly plagiaristic. Should al-Qerry be getting advice from Senator Biden?
The differences, as they exist, are relatively minor.
Make up your "minds." Your flip-flops are almost as worn out as Qerry's.
Mr. Kerry has called for NATO to take a major role in Iraq, freeing up American troops and providing an opening to attract military support from non-NATO nations like India and Pakistan.
Ah, yes. President Bush's proposed mixing up of the military forces of these two nuclear-armed adversaries right in the middle of a nearby war zone. Almost forgot about that "relatively minor" difference in the two plans.
Mr. Bush has left open the possibility of a larger role for NATO, but has not pressed hard for such a change, and administration officials are skeptical that Europeans have any desire to contribute more assistance than they already have.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Tuesday that Iraq would be discussed at the NATO summit at the end of next month in Turkey, and that 16 of the 26 NATO member nations are already involved in Iraq in some way.
See? Qerry wants an extremely large NATO presence in Iraq as soon as possible, and President Bush says not so fast. No differences exist here either.
More From The Times
· Tracing Berg's Odd Path
· Aspirin May Prevent Breast Cancer
· The Stress of Business Travel He said that NATO has not ruled out an expanded role in Iraq, but that there is no consensus on what that role would be.
"We should not go into this, as some critics have, thinking that, you know, all you have to do is go to NATO and there is a huge body of troops waiting there just to be asked," Mr. Powell said.
Better not tell Hanoi John that there isn't. It might upset his "plans."
Mr. Kerry has also called for the establishment of a United Nations high commissioner to oversee the political development of Iraq and the rebuilding efforts. Mr. Bush has more or less embraced the need for the United Nations to authorize a multinational force led by the United States - a position long pushed by Mr. Kerry - but has signaled no support for putting additional direct power in the hands of a United Nations commissioner.
"More or less" apparently has the same meaning as "no difference" in libberish. Must make a mental note of that for future reference.
The core of Mr. Kerry's argument is
a meaningless assortment of garbled nuances
...that Mr. Bush is now viewed with such low regard in Europe
Also, "France and Germany" means "Europe." (Oh, plus Belgium.) But doesn't include United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Iceland, and—before al-Qaeda bombed Madrid—Spain.
...that it would take a new president to put together an international coalition. Mr. Kerry asserted that it would take a new president to "clear the air" and re-establish battered relations with former allies.
Trying to "clear the air" with the French might prove extremely difficult, however (if not outright impossible). Introducing them to the American concept of daily showering could backfire and wind up offending them more instead.
News in a Flash
See headlines in just 90 seconds from ABC News.
Watch Video Administration officials have been dismissive of Mr. Kerry's idea of putting a United Nations high commissioner in Iraq. They have argued that the Iraqis do not want the United Nations in power any more than they want the United States in power.
"This is not East Timor," one senior administration official said, a reference to the breakaway Indonesian territory where a high commissioner was put in place.
May 26, 2004
Our mission also includes making sure they stay liberated. The Iraqi people still have that empty feeling and foul taste from the Ululating Numskulls' oil-for-food program stuck in their mouths. Throwing them to the wolves of a EuroUNion-run protectorateship —leading there to a very real quagmire—would be saddamistically cruel.
Or will he? Al Qerry never says the same thing twice. That's called 'nuance.'
A man walked out of a bar, both arms raised straight up in the air. Soon a woman came out doing the same thing. When another person left, both his arms raised, he ran into a friend who was on her way in. "What's up?" she asked. "They have the game on in there and our team just scored a touchdown?" "No," the man said. "Al-Qerry's in there and he's teaching everybody how to speak French."
Here's another: Article II of our Constitution says that the president, "together with the Vice President," shall both be elected. But the Twenty Second Amendment says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Also, the Twelfth Amendment says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Yet the Dems say, "So what? We can nominate John Qerry's pal Bill Clinton—the impeached, twice-elected president—as the former's running mate if we wanna." Hanoi John says, "Si vous faites ceci, je ne tournerai pas mon dos à lui." [excuse my *spit* French *spit*]
One more: The Republicans just finished their convention in New York. In Boston, reporters quickly gather outside Al-Qerry's Base Headquarters waiting for him to finally accept his party's presidential nomination. Instead of the French-looking, French-speaking senator they were expecting, Senator Hilldabeast of New York appears at the microphones. "I want you all to know that Dhimmicratic Party rules say that if a person nominated by our party for president hasn't accepted that nomination within fifteen days, that person is no longer eligible to receive it but may select someone else to be the party's nominee. Guess who he selected? Mmbwaha haha ha haha hah...."
Additional ones sure to follow as the joke known as the Dhimmicrat's presidential campaign "progresses."
Welcome to Liberal Logic 501. Please check your brain at the door and proceed with extreme rashness.
L esson one. In the event you cannot effectively counter someone's argument with relevant facts and reason, simply tell that person he or she is a racist, a retard, or insane, and should "hurry up and die."
An exemplary student of this course followed that lesson to a tee, using all four vitriolic expressions, while commenting on Sir Banagor's "Extreme Replies" at Shining full plate and a good broadsword. Sir Banagor's response to it in "Racism" shows why the need for applying such lesson is so great among the left these days. It would be exceptionally difficult to try to counter his argument using anything else without looking racist, retarded, and insane yourself.
To illustrate the point, would the left call you a racist if you spoke in scathing, even vengeful terms against the Klan? or Nazis? Or would they applaud you for your "tolerance"?
How then can anyone stand up for an extremist culture that is much worse? The Klan never stoned their women for showing an ankle. Nazis even allowed their women to be "a major part of the workforce." Yet if you jumped all over a leftist the same way after he vilifies either of these societies (both of which are considered exclusively "pure" white), he and others like him would descend on you and call you a racist and a fascist.
Because the left sees America as she is today as their enemy, they are willing to give the one culture that is hell-bent on destroying her a pass when it comes to its demonstrably racist and fascist mores and traditions: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What is the penalty for distributing the Christian Bible in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Who besides True Believers may hold any office in their respective governments? Does the left actually support any of that? to the point of defending this culture against anyone who rightly opposes it more viciously than one would oppose the Klan or Nazis? They must support it, judging by the way they mindlessly attack any of its detractors.
Unless they start being vocal themselves in condemning the brutish, extreme nature of this culture, one can only conclude that oppressive Shi'a Islam as a state religion, murderous Jihad against The Great Satan as any man's highest calling, and the resulting subjugation of all women and minorities, are things the left believes have to be tolerated. Such a high level of tolerance, however, inescapably implies acceptance.
Do you support these things or not? If not, why would you fail to openly condemn them as well? or, at the very least, why would you ever condemn anyone who does?
Nancy Pelosi just thought we needed to know what all the terrorists have been saying all along, 'sall. Like, you know, as a public service and stuff.
Pelosi Criticizes Bush on Iraq Policies
[ TehranTimes.com (May 22, 2004)
No. 20, Sahand St., Beheshti Ave.
Tehran, Tehran
Iran ]
WASHINGTON (AP)- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lashed out at President Bush on Thursday, saying his Iraq policies show incompetence and the only conclusion to draw is that "the emperor has no clothes."
"I believe that the president's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience," the California Democrat told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
B efore anyone else piles on the Dhimmicrat's Leader, they need to view the full facts of this story. Clearly these aren't the words of a Member of Congress or one of the highest officials of a national political party during wartime. You see, it's like this:
About a week ago, Madam Leader received the latest issue of Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad) in her mailbox. It's just part of her "Pulling Curtains Back" on America's bloodthirsty, mortal enemies project. She wants to know what they're up to and saying. So she's reading the English version (PDF summary and analysis) of this al-Qaeda official magazine and seeing all the nasty, mean things they're saying about us and our president in it. She believes the American people should know about this too. So she urgently calls a press conference.
I mean, after all, this is the same magazine who's editorial policy is—
- My fighting brother,
Kill the heretic; kill whoever his blood is the blood of a dog; kill those that Almighty Allah has ordered you to kill….
Bush son of Bush… a dog son of a dog… his blood is that of a dog… Shut your mouth and speak with your other mouth - the mouth of the defender against his attacker. Rhetoric might cause retreat.
Not a very nice thing to say, now, is it? Northeast Intelligence Network says the latest issue "contains roughly eleven stories or reports within its 42 pages, including an 'Editor's Note' that specifically addresses the recent audio tape message purportedly made by Osama bin Laden. The editorial makes a specific attempt to connect the alleged bin Laden message with a planned economic and political assault against the US to achieve the same results in a manner similar to the results achieved by the Madrid bombings." It's cover story is a report on recent metals-market manipulation. (Perhaps terrorists are looking for a way to increase the value of the gold they're offering for the assassination of our leaders.) But where some may only dabble in such research of these fanatics, our int repid Dem Leader is really on to them.
At the press conference, Madam Pelosi merely told reporters what her counterparts in the terrorist organizations are saying.
Republicans swiftly responded by defending the president and assailing Pelosi for crossing the line for political gain.
Marc Racicot, the chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, described Pelosi's comments as a "reprehensible attempt to blame America for the actions of terrorists," and called on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to repudiate her remarks.
Now, see, this has all been an unfortunate misunderstanding. Here the Dhimmicrat Leader comes out and let's those of us who don't get Sawt al-Jihad know what the terrorists think; and this is the thanks she gets. As she keeps trying to say, these are "not my statements" but those of the terrorists.
The criticism of Bush - harsh even by the highly partisan standards in Washington - came as the president traveled to the Capitol to rally Republican lawmakers around his Iraq plan at a time of increasing violence in Iraq and outrage over Iraqi prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers.
Bush told congressional Republicans he is sticking to a June 30 date for handing partial governing authority to Iraqis and that the Iraqis are ready to "take the training wheels off" by assuming some political power.
But the terrorists are saying things like "the results of [President 'Pharaoh' Bush's] action are what undermine his leadership" because "those soldiers are completely convinced of the lies and the unjust attitude of their government. Also, they miss a just cause to defend. The[y] only fight for the interests of the rich and those that lend their money for interest and the traders of arms and oil, including the gang of crime in the White House." Thus, "He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops." Yet "the shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there."
Democrats, including Kerry, have been critical of Bush's stewardship of Iraq, but Pelosi's comments were the strongest to date. "This president should have known ... when you decide to go to war you have to know what the consequences of your action are and how you can accomplish the mission," Pelosi said. "There was plenty of intelligence to say there would be chaos in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad."
Plenty of intelligence to say al-Qaeda terrorists and Syrian commandos would try to create isolated hotspots and incidents to foment just a perception of "chaos" there. Dhimmicratic Leader Pelosi was only trying to tell us what our enemy already knows—that spooking our politicians with such imagined chaos is the only chance he has of winning the "propaganda" war and securing calls from them for our retreat: "we realized from our defense and our fight with the American enemy that it depends, to a large extent, on the psychological warfare during its fight because it possesses a huge propaganda apparatus. Also, it depends on intensive air bombing and, that is to hide its biggest weakness point which is fear, coward ness, and the lack of the fighting spirit within the American soldiers." Surely we needed someone to pull the curtain back on that.
Bush's policy "of ignoring his own State Department about what would happen after the fall of Baghdad and ignoring the intelligence as to the chaotic situation that would exist ... carries with it a responsibility for all of the costs of war," she said.
Madam Pelosi's purpose was not to offer any suggestions or constructive proposals for improving the situation. She just really thought we should know how much the terrorists are really counting on this perception of chaos to achieve their goals. After all, they're saying don't "pay attention to the futile solutions, the solutions of the prevaricators...who were preoccupied with their money and kindred and who were deceived by themselves." We should thank her for that heads up.
"And that's not only the president, that is all of us any time we vote to send our young people into harm's way. "The results of his action are what undermine his leadership, not my statements," she said. "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?"
In fact, what she said is what many terrorists are thinking. I think many terrorists want their leaders to speak out on these issues: "As for President Bush...these are only some of the tools used to deceive and exploit peoples....Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood....You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things. If this happens, do not blame us - blame yourselves. A rational person does not relinquish his security, money and children to please the liar of the White House....Reality proves our truthfulness and his [George Bush's] lie."
Note their emphasis on "the cost in lives ... the cost in dollars to the taxpayer, and the cost in reputation to our country." Dhimmitudic Leader Pelosi was only pointing this out, as well as how they think "Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader....He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She's seen the Sawt al-Jihad article which says his "capacity to lead has never been there. In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none." Isn't it helpful to know the thoughts of those who are desperately trying to annihilate us?
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Pelosi's comments "were meant to inspire her political base. But who else do they inspire? If we followed Mrs. Pelosi's advice, Saddam Hussein would still terrorize the citizens of Iraq. We would still be waiting for the U.N. to make any decision regarding our national security." Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said if all Pelosi could offer is taunting U.S. troops "by saying they are dying needlessly and are risking their lives on a shallow mission, then she should just go back to her pastel-colored condo in San Francisco and keep her views to herself."
A Pelosi spokeswoman said that the congresswoman lives in a red-brick house.
I know Speaker McCarthy was trying not to get personal about it. Certainly, whether someone lives in a reddish-pink condommunium is just a statement of fact. In the interest of finding out what the terrorists are thinking, however, we should concentrate on the editorials and articles in Sawt al-Jihad which Madam Pelosi was kind enough to quote from for us in her press conference and interview.
For this reason I believe every God-fearing lover of our country should email the Democrat Leader and say how much they appreciate her relaying to us these terrorist-supported thoughts.
The sooner we actually win this war (i.e., completely wipe out Islamonazism) the better chance they'll all have of returning home safely. Or they can all come home now, and then end up fighting the entire war right here. For whom, exactly, are liberals demonstrating support?
A nti-war demonstrators say they're "against the war, but support our troops." How about they ask any of the people they say they're supporting whether he or she appreciates or ever sees any real evidence of such support. I believe the overwhelming answer these anti-war anti-win demonstrators would get would be a lot like this Marine Corps officer's:
- Support the troops
A Marine Corps officer in Fallujah says in an e-mail that much progress has been made in killing insurgents and taming Iraq. But he worries about poll numbers.
"The Marines fought hard in Fallujah and took a lot of very evil people out of the fight," the officer wrote. "That effort, and the associated loss of Marine lives, was not in vain. We're already seeing a significant decrease in the enemy's ability to attack our forces. The supply lines are open again and everything is flowing freely through the country. Their efforts to cut us off in order to break our willpower failed. The Iraqi people are tired of the enemy, and they are turning them over to us left and right.
"We're reading that everyone back home is starting to lose faith in our efforts in Iraq. The last CBS poll put the numbers under 50 percent for the first time. I know that doesn't mean a loss in support for the troops, but supporting 'the troops' while not supporting the mission doesn't do much for us.
"The Marines are in high spirits. The troops in Fallujah are doing what Marines do best, and they're true professionals. Everyone else is driving forward, wondering what all the fuss back home is all about. We don't feel that we're losing anything. In fact, we're finally addressing issues that should have been addressed some time ago."
source: Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside the Ring," Washington Times, May 14, 2004; Bill Gertz, Inside the Ring Archives: 2004 Columns, "Support the troops," The Gertz File.
See also: Old Benjamin, "Fallujah Update," Advisory Opinion, May 20, 2004.
If I had a dime for each time Jerman-Frenchboy al-Qerry (the "al" stands for aloof) miserably failed to leave that word out of the interviews and speeches he's given since announcing his candidacy, I'd have more than enough to make this blog—plus a dozen others—completely ad-free.
J osef Göebbels, head of Nazi Germany's Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, decreed a number of rules for making Adolf Hitler's propaganda effective. They pretty much boil down to these simple three:
1. The Big Lie
This is what Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf, considered a "sound principle," even when employed, as he alleged, by the Jooooos:
[T]he magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick—a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.
TBL: An Example "Dictatorship! Isn't the National Socialist Party essentially the German people? Aren't its leaders men of the people? How silly to imagine that this can be what the English call dictatorship! What we today have in Germany is not a dictatorship but rather a political discipline forced upon us by the pressure of circumstances. However, since we have it, why shouldn't we take advantage of the fact?" - Göebbels source: Lothrop Stoddard, Into The Darkness: Nazi Germany Today (1940); Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook, No. 0300731.txt. It's why, during Lothrop Stoddard's 1940 interview with Göebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister said with a perfectly straight face, "We Germans don't like this war" (although they sure had a funny way of showing it). Such a statement is so outrageous it defies reasonable belief. Another example of Göebbels' use of The Big Lie, taken from the same interviews, is shown in the box on the right.
"This administration has failed" is no-Qlue Qerry's version of TBL. Failure, in Qerry's worldview, means anything short of absolute perfection (if it was done by a Republican).
There hasn't been another terrorist attack anywhere on American soil, despite the terrorists' active, ongoing plans to do just that. Iraq's dictatorship has been completely toppled and is no longer in a position to offer actual or even potential support for any of those terrorists' plans. Libya's dictator is bending over backwards to eliminate that country's weapons of mass destruction so they won't ever fall into terrorists hands. Our economy is recovering very nicely despite our country having to fight a full-scale global war with the terrorists. Yet al-Qerry claims that "this administration has failed" on both national security and the economy. That's why his lie is as big as any of Göebbels'.
What does Hanoi John propose as an alternative to such "miserable failures"? In essence, higher taxes and relying more on the United Nations. Higher taxes, of course, would stiffle businesses' ability to expand and create more jobs, while greater reliance on a manifestly corrupt and inept UN would jeopardize any chance the world has of ever achieving total victory in its war on terror.1 The recession would reemerge then deepen, lasting for years. The terrorists would have real cause for hope, threatening every country for decades.
2. Mind-numbingly repeat TBL
Saturating the media, or at least his speeches and interviews, with TBL is the only hope al-Qerry has of making it stick. Since "this administration has failed" is not supported by any real facts, he hopes by repeating it over and over the public will eventually come to associate his new F-word with our president. It doesn't matter to him how superficial that association is, just so long as it's there.
FIFTH COLUMN, a body of people, who, through political disaffection, self-interest, corruption, or ignorance, become the victims of enemy propaganda, and therefore, either consciously or unconsciously, materially assist the belligerent intentions of the enemy. The term was originated by General Emilio Mola, a leader on the Nationalist side during the Spanish Civil War, who made the statement in November 1936 that he had four columns advancing on Madrid, but that a fifth column of rebellious sympathizers, hidden within the city itself, would be the determining factor in assuring victory. The fifth column, strictly speaking, does not refer to direct traitors, espionage agents, and saboteurs, but to that element of the population which, through misguided motives, usually believes that it is acting in the best interests of its country. Adolf Hitler once said that "our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within," and Spain became the proving ground for German and Italian fifth-column techniques. It is the object of enemy propaganda to create chaos and confusion, to destroy national unity, to initiate rumors which will play on the nerves of the people, to inflame political, religious, ideological, social, and racial hatreds, and thus to retard preparations for defense and in general to sabotage the war effort. That element of the population which furthers these intentions, by falling a victim to enemy propaganda techniques, becomes the fifth column. This propaganda is especially effective when such basically commendable motives as the general desire for peace and social justice, or the fear of radicalism, are played upon and allowed to disrupt the concerted war effort. In addition to those who innocently help to spread this propaganda for presumably ideological reasons, and those whose patriotism is corrupted by self-interest, are others, such as those naturalized citizens and members of political groups whose predominant allegiance is to another country, who make a direct contribution to fifth-column activity. The use of a fifth column is not new to military history—Napoleon often used similar tactics—but its effectiveness was most clearly demonstrated during World War II. By fostering the growth of defeatists, fascists, rexist, and pacifist movements, and by relying on the support of quislings and such national minorities as the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, the Axis achieved virtually bloodless victories in Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, or facilitated their occupation. source: C[aleb]. W. D[avis]., "Fifth Column," Collier's Encyclopedia (New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1960), 7: 435. But he needs the help of a Fifth Column media to make it stick. Being that his front-runner status is the sole creation of that media, it's a sure bet they'll go out of their way to help moveOn.org along that TBL effort of his no matter what he says, thinks, or does.2
Also, since a lie is only as good as the lying liar who tells it, the Fifth Columners wearing press badges must cast their Baron von Münchhausen in the best possible moonlight. This requires them, among other things, to give the truant senator pass after pass after pass on his record of military service and its aftermath. For examples, al-Qerry gets numerous passes on his war crimes—crimes he admitted (under oath) to committing himself while serving in Viet Nam ("I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others...in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages."). He criminally failed to properly report any of his own atrocities as well as those he claims other soldiers committed ("Did not these [Rules of Engagement] that Kerry knew by heart also require a soldier to report war crimes, or attempted war crimes, by others? Did Kerry report this officer's illegal order to kill civilians to superiors? Or did Kerry remain silent, thereby becoming this officer's ally and enabler, if not accomplice?"). Not that he'd be willing to ever take the entire blame himself. After Lieutenant Calley was convicted of a war-related crime, John Qerry said "the real criminal" is the United States of America.
Has the Fifth Column media ever harped on any of this as much as they did week after week after week on the record of an honorably discharged veteran whom a few crackpotted nutjobs falsely said is a deserter? While crickets are chirping on this one, let's move on to even more of the real misdealings of Hanoi John's service record.
There's a real lack of records supporting the French-backed candidate's claim to at least one of his three Purple Hearts, compared to the strong evidence which shows John F'in' Qerry didn't earn his first Purple Heart. His own commander in the field staunchly refused to recommend him for that medal, so JFQ decided his only course of action was to finagle his way around those objections by going straight over the head of his commander to get it. That's how this walking billboard for Botox got his early ticket out of Viet Nam after serving only one-third of what was supposed to be a year-long tour of duty there. (Not even his abysmal attendance record in the U.S. Senate has been so bad.) Even more disturbing, once he returned home to the United States he promptly joined a radical extremist anti-war group and was still a member of it when it conspired to assassinate United States senators. Since he couldn't get the vacancies his group was shooting for there, he decided to just create a couple on his chest by tossing his ribbons (or medals) or someone else's medals (or ribbons)—he keeps waffling on the details—over some fence. Not surprisingly, all his former commanders—the ones who've truly seen his actual service record—adamently and unanimously say Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry is unfit to be commander in chief. Yet the crickets keep chirping in the Fifth Column media's front yards on these facts too.
While omitting from their stories those very credible accounts of this seasonal soldier's crime-spree in Vietnam, the same reporters and editors who call adhering to our country's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, "dissent," see no problem at all giving credence and much ink and airtime to the wild accusations and extremist claims running throughout Qing Qetchup's The Big Lie. However, the fact that this media have played and printed his French fashioned TBL innumerable times does not mean it's true.
Fonda's former flunky scribbles things like "This administration has failed to make its case on the international stage or to the American people for the rationale of starting the war [in Afghanistan] or for the means of ending it." Indeed:
Does al-Qerry not believe that the people who jumped to their deaths from either tower or were crushed to death when it collapsed have themselves made our country's case for fighting every terrorist cell, group or organization, as well as every state that offers or may likely offer it comfort or assistance, until their loved ones and all other Americans are assured that no one else in this country need ever suffer a similar fate?
Or the people aboard any of four hijacked planes who called home to tell their loved ones, "I love you. I think we're going down, but don't worry. It's going to be quick," and "I want you to live your life. I know I'll see you someday"? Or those brave men and women inside the Pentagon who dedicated themselves to defending our lives and that of our Nation? All of them aren't "rationale" enough for taking out the terrorists and their actual and potential supporters whoever and wherever we believe they are or think they might be? And not stopping until that job is completely done?
Al-Qerry obviously doesn't believe so. He'd rather we turn the handling of our own security permanently over to a corrupt, French-obstructed UN. The same way he believes letting international organizations handle vital components of our economic security is the way to go there.
He says, "Year after year, [this administration] has consistently failed to represent U.S. interests in the global economy." This coming from someone who voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement before he voted for the World Trade Organization. Under the NAFTA treaty, a three-nation Free Trade Commission is established which "assists in the resolution of disputes that may arise between the NAFTA countries regarding the agreement." This so-called assistance includes approving all agreements on unresolved issues. With al-Qerry's consent, what was supposed to be a power that we the people vested solely in our Congress ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations") is now being exercised by this trilateral commission. How's that for representing our interests in the global economy?
The Qerry-approved World Trade Organization is even worse. Called "the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world," this organization is more interested in protecting his wife's multinational assets than it is about respecting our national sovereignty. Yet Hanoi John wants to expand its powers even more, giving it the ability to bash Japan, China, and other countries for their monetary policy decisions. What it can do to one country it can do to ours. But that's all right in al-Qerry's globalistic view. He consistently believes international bodies like the UN and WTO know what's best for us anyway, much more than we do ourselves.
‘Tell a big enough lie often enough and some people—often many people—will believe it.’ Moreover, all the trade policies he's saying "this administration has failed" on, as well as many other free-trade schemes, were passed under Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry's watch with his full consent. He voted for renewing fast track presidential trade authority. He voted for expanding trade to the third world. He voted for permanent normal trade relations with China. He voted for removing common goods from national security export rules. He voted for granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. He voted for extending free trade to Andean nations. His "relatively modest" proposals for "better enforcement" of bad agreements and treaties won't help. Those never should've been passed by him and his colleagues in the first place.
When it comes to protecting our nation's security and interests, France's favorite candidate is the one who's failed. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on his way to Saudi Arabia, Qerry voted against pushing back the dictator. When we needed to fully upgrade our defenses with such advanced weapons systems as the B-1 bomber, the B-2, the F-15, the F-14A, the F-14D, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Patriot missile, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, the Trident missile, the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet, Hanoi John said no on every one of them. When this administration asked for body armor to protect our troops, Mr. Qetchup voted nay. When our troops requested a highly-earned and long-overdue pay raise, Lurch quipped, "Let them eat cake." He voted to cut, transfer or freeze defense spending 38 times, cancel military pay raises 12 times, raid the Social Security Trust Fund five times, freeze all defense spending for seven years, and cut $2.5 billion from our country's counterterrorism and intelligence budgets after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Despite his own record of failure after failure after failure, al-Qerry and his Fifth Column media cohorts will keep following Göebbels' first two rules to the letter, repeating his "this administration has failed" TBL until your ears bleed. These two rules, which are necessary for setting up a lie like Hitler's or Hanoi John al-Qerry's, can be summarized as follows: "Tell a big enough lie often enough and some people—often many people—will believe it."3 But you need one additional rule to keep any TBL going.
3. Personally attack anyone who questions TBL
Following this last rule changes the subject because your opponent is forced to respond with a defense of himself instead of a rebuttal to what was supposed to be your defense of TBL. Once you have in place a whopper of a Big Lie and a complicit Fifth Column media ready to ensure its endless repetition, nothing stands in your way of pulling it off other than the truth. Anyone willing to contradict your TBL with it, therefore, must be attacked.
In al-Qerry's case, these attacks take the form of deriding administration officials and other leaders who publicly point out the failings of his proposal for outsourcing our country's security to the United Nations and for scaling back security measures we've adopted to protect our borders and infrastructure, referring to such officials and leaders as "attack dogs" and "smear mongers." When they describe how his proposal would pose a real danger to America, for example, he takes it personally, saying they "dare question my patriotism." Also, because he's trying to use his four-month presence in Vietnam over 30 years ago as "proof" that he knows what he's talking about regarding our defense, he says these same officials and leaders are attacking that so-called proof too. That's utter nuance, and is itself a big lie as well since none of them have shown the chutzpah yet to call that spade the spade that it actually is.4 Meanwhile, America's mortal enemies make no secret how much they really appreciate what Hanoi John is doing against a sitting president in time of war, adding to their own propaganda his "this administration has failed" TBL smear tactic whenever they can.
Just calling any truth tellers "questioners of my patriotism" is, al-Qerry hopes, enough to put them on the defensive. Although such name calling is another ploy of big liars, which they believe helps them avoid facing any truth, it is nothing new.
In many crowd situations, the reaction of the group is determined by the behavior of a leader. Through the use of standard propaganda techniques, the leader frequently is able to crystallize previously amorphous activity and to direct the behavior of the crowd toward the accomplishment of ends that suit his own purposes. Among the commonly recognized techniques is "name calling." The leader or propagandist attaches a label to the object of his attack and relies on the tendency of his listeners to react to the name rather than to the characteristics of the object itself.5
"I served in Vietnam, and you're questioning my patriotism, you patriotism questioners," he accuses them. It is effective only if the truth tellers respond to his accusation rather than accuse him, in turn, of trying to change the subject.
Personal attacks are used to throw your opponent off balance. They can buy you time, especially with a media eager to devote its finite resources covering an entertaining spitball contest started by such attacks. They increase the Fifth Column media's ratings and the public's general ignorance of an otherwise stilted candidacy devoid of any real ideas, but which that media is banking everything it has on to swindle us out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and place it under the heel of its liberally biased estate.
Liberals, like Hitler, have always believed that The Big Lie is a sound principle. They were and still are willing to use it as much as possible to advance their continual quest to seize absolute political, social, and cultural power. The "this administration has failed" version of The Big Lie peddled these days by Herr Monsieur Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry is no different.
Hard to miss a WMD when your enemy's exploding it in your lap.
“W e support our troops,” liberals are fond of saying. How about supporting their mission, too, since their enemy (mine and yours as well, in case you've forgotten—especially if you live anywhere near a subway or large, enclosed shopping mall) proved he has access to weapons of mass destruction now and is very willing to use them against us. To be on the safe side, call this first detonation of his a "battlefield test." Our enemy has some bugs to work out before the next one.
In the meantime, liberals, shut up about our presence in Iraq not being justified. It doesn't take a jumper falling on top of you from 87 stories up to tell you the terrorists are in this for keeps and are gunning for you. This time with a cache of WMD that we know they have.
Better yet, keep saying it isn't justified, no matter what happens. I'm sure a lot of independent voters out there would love to hear what you have to say about how we "found only one"—that is, until the next one is "found" explodes. Then you can say "that's only two." Rinse. Repeat.
While you mull that one over, here's a nice bedtime story for you: Once upon a time the members of Iraq's ruling council asked the United States to keep a tight lid on all discoveries of WMD until after the turnover of sovereignty on June 30. The council's leader said that if terrorists knew we've already found most of them that those would be their prime target as they desperately attempt to spook America into scrapping that date and prolonging its Zionist Crusader occupation. The new Iraqi policemen guarding a certain warehouse might already have gotten wind of what's really in there, he said, and have (for a price) passed along that information to al-Qaeda. Hence the missing WMD shell and the test detonation of its chemical compounds a few weeks later. Moreover, the council's leader continued, it is the responsibility of a sovereign Iraq (not the U.S.) to inform the United Nations that it is in possession of Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Then the UN can come in a oversee their dismantling and destruction and welcome Iraq back into the family of nations as a fine, upstanding, honest member. The End.
All it takes for liberalism to prevail is for good, right-thinking people to do nothing.
Y ou don't have to be selected grand poobah of the VRWC® to be in a position to get right things done. Even if you were, you still couldn't unless there are regular, decent people out there doing the little right things which, taken all together, make our country great.
The Dark Side™ knows this. Its assortment of media wraiths, duhngeon undergrounders, walking braindeaders, and zombie party officials realize that their car isn't going to drive itself to Chappaquiddick bridge. It needs several someones to put gas in its tank and tank up its driver, others to make sure there's air in the tires and that driver's head, someone to goad an unsuspecting passenger into riding along, and another to operate the industrial-sized crane necessary for pulling the driver out of the water alone after he takes their car snorkeling.
So whenever you ask yourself "What good can I do?" please remember the only answer that isn't right is "nothing." Every single act of rightness and good advances the causes of Truth, Freedom and Liberty in our nation, and helps defeat the forces of baseness and evil that are working against her. Absent even the smallest such act which you decided not to do because you didn't think it would be much help, there's left an opening for the purveyors of liberalism to step through and fill up with their reality-defying but pleasant-sounding BS.
What you do doesn't need to be perfect. Whether it is or not liberals are going to be against it and will waste what little's left of their respective braincell puzzling over why yet another person wasn't simpleton enough to swallow what they were casting hook, line and sinker, and then how they might go about making their bait seem somehow less rancid. If you do nothing, they assume someone's been hooked somewhere and will put on a big show of reeling in what they want everyone to consider is another catch. But if you just swat away the hook they'll be quiet about having to come up empty again, only saying they hit another snag while whining over and over how it wasn't their fault.
So do something good and right for the right and the good. It'll be worth the effort because, when added atop everyone else's, it will make a huge and positive difference.
No, it's not a multiple wedding. Just one.
- MASSACHUSETTS
Current law: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry by May 17, 2004.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages but establishing civil unions gained preliminary approval March 29 during the state Constitutional Convention. The measure must be approved in identical form during the next legislative session in 2005 before going to a statewide vote in 2006. Three bills introduced to permit same-sex couples to marry but are not likely to come to a vote (HB 3556, HB 3677, SB 935). A citizen initiated petition drive is under way to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but 2008 is the soonest it could come to a statewide vote.
Source: Kavan Peterson, "50-state rundown on gay marriage laws," Stateline.org, May 13, 2004; Kavan Peterson, "Massachusetts one step closer to gay marriage ban," Id., April 1, 2004.
P roblem is there is no law in place providing for same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts (or in any other state). So anywhere they take place they'll be performed outside the rule of law. The Massachusetts constitution does provide, however, that "the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." That's under its Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
By allowing the judicial branch of Massachusetts' government to exercise any law-making power, the people's rights are directly violated. Moreover, since no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution), the judicial branch's ordering state executive officers to perform acts not provided for or even recognized under current laws denies all Massachusetts citizens the equal protection of those laws.
Tomorrow, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's November 18, 2003 order requiring state officials to approve same-sex "marriages" takes effect. The delay was "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." (See also its February 3, 2004 advisory opinion.)
However, the legislature has taken no action other than passing a proposed constitutional amendment which must be passed again next year before it can be submitted to voters. There are no new marriage laws specially providing for the court's "reformulation" of marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons [instead of 'one man and one woman'] as spouses." Without such laws passed by the legislature, there is no legitimate authority in Massachusetts under which same-sex "marriages" may be allowed.
No matter. Liberals aren't interested anyway in whether there's a law actually allowing or prohibiting something. As long as a liberal court somewhere has "so ordered" it, that trumps any law passed by the representatives of us mere peasants.
Welcome to your brave new world, Massachusetts. As the brides and grooms of that Frankenstein monster known as same-sex "marriage" are let loose on your countryside, you can always gather up your torches and pitchforks and shout nasty things at the castle of your Supreme Judicial Court. Not that it'll do you any good before any of their 70th birthdays.
As a hobo once heard puppily barked before he himself was sacked, "Indeed." (Hat tip: Secular Blasphemy)
Last Updated: Friday, 14 May, 2004, 22:10 GMT 23:10 UK
Editor sacked over 'hoax' photos
Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake.
In a statement the Mirror said it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and that it would be "inappropriate" for Morgan to continue.
The Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR) said the Mirror had endangered British troops by running the pictures.
Roger Goodman, of the QLR, said the regiment now felt "vindicated".
Mr Goodman added: "It is just a great pity it has taken so long... and that so much damage has been done in the meantime."
At a news conference in Preston on Friday afternoon, the regiment demonstrated to reporters aspects of uniform and equipment which it said proved the photographs were fake.
"The Daily Mirror... apologises unreservedly for publishing the pictures and deeply regrets the reputational damage done to the QLR and the Army in Iraq" - Mirror statement
[ more ]
The same way Nick Berg's were.
Updated: 10:42 AM EDT [ Asshaturated Press/AOL Spews ]
Sanchez to Limit Interrogation Tactics
By MATT KELLEY and JOHN J. LUMPKIN, AP
WASHINGTON (May 15) - Amid the uproar over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners,
(Just like the uproar over Nick Berg's screams as terrorists sliced into his neck five times before cutting off his head and holding it up in front of a camera, his dead eyes both still open.)
the senior U.S. commander in Iraq is moving to eliminate most coercive interrogation tactics.
[ photo/Getty Images; caption ] U.S. soldiers interrogate a prisoner accused of being a Baath party officer after a raid July 4, 2003 in Balad, Iraq.
The Pentagon says Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez is letting military intelligence chiefs know that their requests for such methods, which had been allowed with specific permission, will be turned down. Sanchez issued the order Thursday.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Nick Berg's beheader, welcomed the change in policy. "The Zionist-Crusaders and their overlord Joooos, at least for now, have come to their senses," he said. "As a gesture of good will, we too will change our policy respecting the treatment of our prisoners. All requests for beheading any prisoner will be turned down. Only arms and feet may be hacked off and sent back in boxes to the prisoners' families."
In its most comprehensive outline to date of methods that interrogators can use to question detained Iraqis, the Pentagon said Friday that Sanchez had approved 25 requests to isolate prisoners for interrogation since mid-October.
He had turned down three requests to put prisoners into uncomfortable positions to get them to talk, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Senior military officials also insisted that all interrogation techniques that have been approved have been allowable under international law.
Human Rights Watch's director Ost Rich-Headinsand, however, said that such isolation methods are still considered a severe form of abuse. "Not even Sheikh al-Zarqawi isolated his prisoner before slicing through his neck. Even after Mr. Berg's head was severed away from his body and held up to the camera, he was not alone. The sheikh as well as four others were always present in the room with the prisoner."
Seven soldiers are facing military charges related to the abuse and humiliation of prisoners captured by the now-infamous photographs at Abu Ghraib, a prison in Baghdad. The soldiers and their lawyers have said military intelligence officials running the interrogations told military police assigned as guards to abuse the prisoners to make interrogations easier.
A source close to the investigation said at least one still-unreleased video clip shows an intelligence official ordering a guard to tie a leash around the neck of one of the prisoners. The source said, "The intel guy gives this order, 'Hey, mister—I mean, lady, take this leash and this cigarette and tie it around the prisoner and hold it in your mouth.' And the soldier goes like, 'But I can't tie a cig around him!' So the intel guy like freaks out and calls her a b**** and yells, 'No, you b****! Tie the leash around him and hold the cigarette in your mouth. And let me step out of view of the camera while you do that.' So she does it and we don't see the intel guy in the frame anymore."
Direct questioning without any physical contact and other such techniques are still permitted without approval from high-level officers, said the officials, who help draft and approve such rules in Iraq.
Called the "Does this bug you? I'm not touching you" method, it may be used only when a prisoner calls his guard a "boogerhead," according to the draft rules.
Until Thursday, more stressful techniques were allowed with Sanchez's approval, such as depriving detainees of sleep for more than 72 hours or forcing them into "stress positions" - making them kneel or stand uncomfortably for more than 45 minutes.
Mr. Headinsand was happy to hear that the "stress position" method was being discontinued, pointing out that Mr. Berg was allowed to sit in a comfortable position while he and Mr. al-Zarqawi read their respective statements.
Sanchez told military intelligence officers Thursday that he would not approve any stressful techniques other than putting prisoners alone in cells or in segregated units with only a small number of other detainees.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez mentioned he was also concerned about the long-term effects of such methods on the prisoners' health. "As everyone knows, stress over a long period of time can lead to heart disease and other stress-related illnesses. So this was a medical decision as well as a military intelligence one," he said.
Critics say the interrogation rules, first laid out in September after a visit to Iraq by the then-commander of the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to a green light for abuse. Pentagon officials heatedly deny that, saying prisoners always are treated under guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.
Mr. al-Zarqawi is still demanding the release of one video clip which apparently shows one detainee being escorted into the prison and his guard being given instructions on what to do with him. LUNews has obtained a copy of this video clip, and is releasing the following partial transcript taken from it:
UNIDENTIFIED SERGEANT: Sir! We just caught this bad guy who was shooting RPGs at out Brad. He had on him these IED [improvised explosive device] detonator caps, and maps showing the placement of at least three IEDs along our route. He also had this paper signed by that al-Zarqawi raghead promoting him to 'Chief Second Jihaadist, First Class' and giving him command of a local militant force. What should I do with the prisoner, sir!
UNIDENTIFIED LIEUTENANT: First off, Sergeant, we don't refer to our detainees or their leaders as 'ragheads.'
SERGEANT: Sir!
LIEUTENANT: Second of all, did you dust the caps and that paper for fingerprints to see if they actually were this prisoner's?
SERGEANT: Sir, no sir!
LIEUTENANT: In that case, Sergeant, hand the prisoner over to the intelligence officer standing over there next to that green light and he'll schedule him for an interrogation.
SERGEANT: Aye, aye, sir!
Mr. al-Zarqawi claims that the video clip clearly shows soldiers being given a green light to violate the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions. "It was never proven that my brother jihaadist was the owner of these devices. He could have just found them lying alongside the road and was on his way to turn them in to the local police. Instead, he was roughly treated and interrogated like a common criminal." The hooded militant refused to comment about the allegation that the prisoner had been firing RPGs at Coalition forces, but instead took umbrage at being called a "raghead" in the clip.
Mr. al-Zarqawi did welcome the news that detainees' heads were no longer being displayed on pikes outside the Abu Ghraib prison's gate, considering that form of interrogation "a little too much."
"That standard is being followed in Guantanamo and in Iraq," said Lawrence Di Rita, the chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Some members of Congress and legal experts say some of the techniques discussed Friday violate the conventions, which are the core of the international laws of war.
(Demoshatic members and legal experts, AssPee. Moreover, those "international laws of war" aren't being followed at all by our enemy. You aren't suggesting that our side do so "unilaterally" now, are you?)
They cite a section of the Geneva Conventions that applies to all detainees in Iraq and which prohibits "physical or moral coercion" against prisoners, "in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties."
"After all," they continued, "Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is a 'High Contracting Party' to the Conventions. See, that's his signature right there on the document. Can't you see his scribbled 'X' next to those drops of Mr. Berg's blood? I thought you could."
"It's obvious that some of the things we're talking about are coercion: putting people in stressful conditions, sleep deprivation for substantial periods of time, hooding," said lawyer and human rights expert [and former Justice Department lawyer under the Johnson Administration] Sidney S. Rosdeitcher. "Those things are plainly coercion."
Mr. Rosdeitcher added, "I'll admit, keeping up Mr. Berg all night with taunts about how he was going to get his head cut off the next morning could be construed, under certain articles of the Conventions, as a 'stressful condition.' However, at no time did his captors ever subject him to a hooding. That would've been plainly coercive."
The two military officials who briefed reporters anonymously included one who is a lawyer. Neither would answer questions about how the approved techniques comply with the Geneva Conventions.
They offered examples, contending that forcing a detainee to stand at attention is permissible unless he is required to do so for so long it becomes painful.
The two anonymous officials also put on a puppet show to demonstrate to reporters what could and could not be done to detainees.
One puppet, whom they called "Migby," was forcing another puppet to stand at attention. "Now, now, bad bad Akbar, you must stand at attention until I say otherwise," said Migby. Akbar, the other puppet, shifted back and forth for a while, then blurted out, "Oowie! This hurts!" Migby provided Akbar a small puppet chair and allowed the latter to sit in it for a while.
In another demonstration, Akbar had his hands tied together in front of him with little puppet rope. Migby approached Akbar with a menacing looking puppet stick and asked, "Are you going to talk?" When Akbar didn't respond, Migby hit the floor hard with his stick, causing Akbar to jump at the loud sound. "Talk!" Migby shouted. When Akbar didn't respond, Migby untied him and placed him behind the curtain. "You cannot come out until you're willing to talk," Migby scolded Akbar.
"There's an enormous amount of subjectivity in the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and mostly what cannot be done," Di Rita said.
(No, there's an enormous amount of partisan maneuvering going on, to the great glee of America's enemies. Democrats and Fifth Column media flacks are trying to figure out how to use these very non-Berglike "abuses" to make our president look as bad as possible, demoralize our troops and tie their hands, and break the American people's resolve. The very same things our terrorist enemy is trying to do.)
Sanchez approved in September a modified set of interrogation rules after recommendations from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was then the commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison. He now runs the U.S. military's prisons in Iraq.
The military officials said Sanchez and other military officials scrubbed Miller's recommendations, changing them because Iraqi prisoners are subject to the Geneva Conventions while the Bush administration holds that Guantanamo detainees are not.
Face-concealing rags around one's head, and wearing Death 2 Jooooos tee-shirts, have been ruled by a United Nations panel to constitute "legitimate military uniforms" of a High Contracting Party.
Civilian contract interrogators hired by the military must follow the rules, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. It's unclear whether CIA operatives, who interrogated some prisoners at Abu Ghraib, must abide by the rules, too.
05-15-04 0907EDT
At least someone on our side may have only one hand tied behind his back. Unfortunately for anyone outside the Democrat Party and its cells embedded with our media, the terrorists aren't extending to us any such courtesy in this war.
Especially in times like these.
- In the long series of very fierce battles, now on this front, now on that, fighting on three fronts at once, battles fought by two or three divisions against an equal or somewhat larger number of the enemy, and fought fiercely on some of the old grounds that so many of us knew so well-in these battles our losses in men have exceeded 30,000 killed, wounded and missing. I take occasion to express the sympathy of the House to all who have suffered bereavement or who are still anxious. The President of the Board of Trade [Sir Andrew Duncan] is not here today. His son has been killed, and many in the House have felt the pangs of affliction in the sharpest form. But I will say this about the missing: We have had a large number of wounded come home safely to this country, but I would say about the missing that there may be very many reported missing who will come back home, some day, in one way or another. In the confusion of this fight it is inevitable that many have been left in positions where honor required no further resistance from them.
Against this loss of over 30,000 men, we can set a far heavier loss certainly inflicted upon the enemy. But our losses in material are enormous. We have perhaps lost one-third of the men we lost in the opening days of the battle of 21st March, 1918, but we have lost nearly as many guns -- nearly one thousand-and all our transport, all the armored vehicles that were with the Army in the north. This loss will impose a further delay on the expansion of our military strength. That expansion had not been proceeding as far as we had hoped. The best of all we had to give had gone to the British Expeditionary Force, and although they had not the numbers of tanks and some articles of equipment which were desirable, they were a very well and finely equipped Army. They had the first-fruits of all that our industry had to give, and that is gone. And now here is this further delay. How long it will be, how long it will last, depends upon the exertions which we make in this Island. An effort the like of which has never been seen in our records is now being made. Work is proceeding everywhere, night and day, Sundays and week days. Capital and Labor have cast aside their interests, rights, and customs and put them into the common stock. Already the flow of munitions has leaped forward. There is no reason why we should not in a few months overtake the sudden and serious loss that has come upon us, without retarding the development of our general program.
Nevertheless, our thankfulness at the escape of our Army and so many men, whose loved ones have passed through an agonizing week, must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster. The French Army has been weakened, the Belgian Army has been lost, a large part of those fortified lines upon which so much faith had been reposed is gone, many valuable mining districts and factories have passed into the enemy's possession, the whole of the Channel ports are in his hands, with all the tragic consequences that follow from that, and we must expect another blow to be struck almost immediately at us or at France. We are told that Herr Hitler has a plan for invading the British Isles. This has often been thought of before. When Napoleon lay at Boulogne for a year with his flat-bottomed boats and his Grand Army, he was told by someone. "There are bitter weeds in England." There are certainly a great many more of them since the British Expeditionary Force returned.
The whole question of home defense against invasion is, of course, powerfully affected by the fact that we have for the time being in this Island incomparably more powerful military forces than we have ever had at any moment in this war or the last. But this will not continue. We shall not be content with a defensive war. We have our duty to our Ally. We have to reconstitute and build up the British Expeditionary Force once again, under its gallant Commander-in-Chief, Lord Gort. All this is in train; but in the interval we must put our defenses in this Island into such a high state of organization that the fewest possible numbers will be required to give effective security and that the largest possible potential of offensive effort may be realized. On this we are now engaged. It will be very convenient, if it be the desire of the House, to enter upon this subject in a secret Session. Not that the government would necessarily be able to reveal in very great detail military secrets, but we like to have our discussions free, without the restraint imposed by the fact that they will be read the next day by the enemy; and the Government would benefit by views freely expressed in all parts of the House by Members with their knowledge of so many different parts of the country. I understand that some request is to be made upon this subject, which will be readily acceded to by His Majesty's Government.
We have found it necessary to take measures of increasing stringency, not only against enemy aliens and suspicious characters of other nationalities, but also against British subjects who may become a danger or a nuisance should the war be transported to the United Kingdom. I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are the passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry for them, but we cannot, at the present time and under the present stress, draw all the distinctions which we should like to do. If parachute landings were attempted and fierce fighting attendant upon them followed, these unfortunate people would be far better out of the way, for their own sakes as well as for ours. There is, however, another class, for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us the powers to put down Fifth Column activities with a strong hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correction of the House, without the slightest hesitation until we are satisfied, and more than satisfied, that this malignancy in our midst has been effectively stamped out.
Turning once again, and this time more generally, to the question of invasion, I would observe that there has never been a period in all these long centuries of which we boast when an absolute guarantee against invasion, still less against serious raids, could have been given to our people. In the days of Napoleon the same wind which would have carried his transports across the Channel might have driven away the blockading fleet. There was always the chance, and it is that chance which has excited and befooled the imaginations of many Continental tyrants. Many are the tales that are told. We are assured that novel methods will be adopted, and when we see the originality of malice, the ingenuity of aggression, which our enemy displays, we may certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel stratagem and every kind of brutal and treacherous maneuver. I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye. We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised.
I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
- Sir Winston Churchill
June 4, 1940
Extract from the Prime Minister's verbal report to the House of Commons.
What a silly question. Of course I am! And I'll prove it by passing the Prager RUAL Test with flying colors.
RUAL Test
Please read all instructions carefully before beginning the test. If you are having any trouble answering a question, put down your pencil and raise your hand. A VRWC representative will be with you shortly to take care of you it. |
- Instructions:
- 1. Read question.
2. Answer question.
3. Keep drool off answer sheet.
- Do you believe that standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color?
Yes. People of color were egregiously oppressed for such a long time in our society that we must take into account the severe disadvantages they have been forced to suffer. If this means giving them special advantages now as a way of offsetting those past disadvantages, then that is what we must do. Our society is guilty of holding them down and must rectify that guilt by generously affording them all these special advantages, since they would have no hope of getting ahead at all otherwise.
- Do you believe that bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America?
Yes. Our strength as a nation and culture lies in our diversity as a people. If we fail to encourage that diversity in our country's newest citizens and guests, then we face losing that strength as more and more of them move here. We will end up becoming a homogenized culture that is intolerant of any difference. So it is important that immigrant children be taught to appreciate and value both their new and their former cultures equally. Showing them that we accommodate and welcome their original language will not only make them feel more welcome here, but strengthen our culture as they grow up because they will bring into it a greater diversity which can only come from their retaining a multiethnic and multicultural outlook.
- Do you believe that murderers should never be put to death?
Yes. The cold-blooded killing of a helpless and confined individual by the state is never morally justified. It only perpetuates the cycle of violence as well as the brutality of that state. No person should ever live in fear that their government can just come along one day and execute them for violating any of its norms. Even if those violations are "proven," governments have been known to make mistakes. An innocent person could be put to death, and the possibility of that ever happening must never be allowed in our society. There is also the possibility that many violators can be re-educated and taught to respect the value of human life, in which case they can again become productive members of our society and of their own communities.
- Do you believe that during the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze?
Yes. If we had demonstrated to the Soviet Union that we were really serious about bringing a complete end to all further construction of nuclear weapons, they would have felt less threatened and more willing to adopt a similar stance on their own. Then the world would have been much safer. We could have ended the so-called Cold War and its arms race much sooner, and in a much more cooperative and mutually beneficial fashion.
- Do you believe that colleges should not allow ROTC programs?
Yes. Forcing colleges to harbor such programs sends the wrong message to prospective students, many of whom are visitors from other countries. It says we tolerate letting our institutions of higher learning be used to instruct people in the "art and science of war"—institutions where it has no real place. If someone wants to be taught how to be a warrior, they can attend a war school or a military academy. Colleges should be reserved solely for learning about the things that create and enhance life, not about the things that can kill or destroy it.
- Do you believe that it was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War?
Yes. If this question refers to the recent war in Iraq, I believe that removing a legitimately elected head of state is as much an act of aggression as any "we" have unilaterally accused him of committing. Going in there without the express permission of the United Nations was clearly wrong, not to mention a violation of international law. The Junior Bushies all deserve to be brought before an international war crimes tribunal and tried for their illegal acts of aggression. However, if this question is about the first Gulf War, then, yes, I believe "we" were wrong to wage war in that instance too. The Senior Bushies never really gave sanctions a chance to work on reducing Saddam Hussein's ability to continue his disputed occupation of Iraq, which he was contending had historically been Iraq's 19th province. We could have negotiated in good faith and worked out a settlement that would have been mutually beneficial for all sides as well as in full compliance with international law. But, no. Instead "we" decided to oust him from Kuwait by force.
- Do you believe that poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools?
Yes. No voucher proposal I have ever seen convinces me that it would lead to anything other than the complete destruction of our public schools. Without any public school system, learning in this country would be set back a hundred years, while millions upon millions of children go uneducated. I suppose some people want poor people to receive no education and remain in squalor and ignorance. But that's not what this country is all about. We're about letting every child have an equal opportunity at getting a good education; and you cannot do that unless there are public schools. Besides, a voucher would have to be made out for thousands of dollars each year for every child to pay for their "tuition" at private schools. Public schools have been delivering the same services free of charge now for only a mere $6,857 a year per pupil, according to a 1996 report.
- Do you believe that it is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party?
Yes. Both professions share in the Democratic Party's fight to rid our society of intolerance, inequality, and denial of rights. It is therefore only proper that they all should assist and support each other on this common ground. If the members of these professions believe—as they seem to now—that no other political party is standing up for equality, rights, and tolerance, then it is perfectly understandable that they would want to be the Democratic Party's biggest contributors since it is both walking the walk and talking the talk on these things. After all, most of the rights that the Democratic Party has always fought for have been won in our courts through the tireless efforts of civil rights attorneys. The Party has also fought side by side with professional educators from all walks of life to ensure that public schools stay strong and teach tolerance and respect for different cultures. The Democratic Party shares with them many of the same values and goals. It is good that their contributions help the Party remain a steadfast partner with them in those efforts.
- Do you believe that marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people?
Yes. If two people love each other, regardless whether they are female and male, male and male, or female and female, they should have the same equal right to get married like everyone else. It is wrong for any government to create barriers that discriminate against two people simply because they happen to be homosexual. We must tolerate people's choices, especially with respect to such personal matters as marrying whomever they wish.
- Do you believe that a married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women?
Yes. Numerous studies have shown that gay and lesbian couples are just as loving and supportive of their children as opposite-sex couples are, in many cases more so. Most traditional marriages end in divorce, so nothing is inherently beneficial for children in those arrangements. It is discriminatory to deny same-sex couples the same rights to adopt. After all, this should all be about the children and their best interests, not what some people might consider inconsistent with their narrow, intolerant religious beliefs.
- Do you believe that the Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings?
Yes. Their blatant acts of discrimination against people who happen to have alternative lifestyles is based on some arcane moral code defined by intolerant religious beliefs, and not based on a more inclusive moral code defined by government. No study has ever shown that gay scout leaders would pose any threat to the physical safety or moral upbringing of young boys, like has happened in the Catholic church. Since the Boy Scouts is not a church, they should have to obey the same laws that prohibit such discrimination in other organizations. If a church or synagogue wants to host meetings of the Boy Scouts or any other organization, it should be required to ensure that the organization engages in no discriminatory practices or else face losing its special tax-exempt status.
- Do you believe that the present high tax rates are good?
Yes. Highly progressive tax rates have always been good for promoting economic equality and, in turn, social justice, and for effectively putting brakes on some of the worst aspects of unbridled capitalism, such as an over-concentration of wealth. A society that is truly democratic should be so economically as well as politically. Otherwise you cannot have real justice. And without justice, there is no peace.
- Do you believe that speech codes on college campuses are good and American values?
Yes. The right to free speech does not include the right to offend others or to speak against or question the value of their cultures or belief systems. Thomas Jefferson wrote that into our constitution so we must respect that. Especially on college campuses where the need to accommodate different cultures and lifestyles, persons of color, and unfettered thought is greatest in terms of promoting academic freedom and diversity without fear of being ridiculed or demonized. Thus it is necessary to adopt codes that prohibit any speech which might contribute to an environment of disrespect, hate, or fear of anyone's race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, sexual preference, lifestyle, culture, or beliefs.
- Do you believe that the Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent?
Yes. Both sides have committed atrocities against each other, and each has an interest in securing a lasting peace between them. But that cannot happen as long as the Israelis keep attacking Palestinians and provoking the Palestinians to attack back in revenge. The Palestinians unjustly lost their land when Israel was set up by the United States, and they deserve to get at least some of it back. This is only fair. President Clinton got Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to hug the Israeli prime minister and both won a peace prize for it. So there is hope that the Israelis will let the Palestinians have some of their land back.
- Do you believe that the United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court?
Yes. When all nations decide something is right or should be done, then each nation can be assured that what has been decided by all of them is legitimate. The United Nations was formed so that no nation could impose its will on or otherwise threaten any other nation. That moral intention should always be revered and respected by every nation, regardless its relative strength or weakness. The United Nations does a lot of great humanitarian work, too, such as feeding starving peoples. Petty questions about sovereignty only stand in the way of this work. So no country should believe its sovereignty is more important than this global good, especially as it relates to our world court.
- Do you believe that it is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas?
Yes. Achieving parity between men's and women's sports activities on college campuses is vital to eliminating all gender-based discrimination there and in our society. Once the number of women's sports teams starts increasing, an equal number of men's teams can be added back, which is most fair for all sides.
- Do you believe that no abortions can be labeled immoral?
Yes. A woman's right to choose what she does to her own body is paramount to maintaining her autonomy as a person, and is more important than the status of any embryo or fetus which remains a part of her body until it actually leaves her womb. Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of centuries, and aborting something that is essentially a mere body part of hers whenever she wishes is their way of getting back at men and out from under all that oppression.
- Do you believe that restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section?
Yes. Smoking is harmful and should be banned from all places. Until this ban can be imposed universally, no restaurant should be allowed to discriminate against any customer through the segregationist method of forcing them to make a false choice between smoking and non-smoking sections. Studies have shown that smoke travels everywhere and that even the least amount of second-hand smoke will likely cause emphysema, cancer, or other related illnesses in every non-smoker who is exposed to it.
- Do you believe that high schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them?
Yes. In an era when AIDS and HIV infections are becoming much more common, it is necessary to do whatever we can to protect our children from catching this deadly sexually transmitted disease. Practices of safe sex must be taught all students from the youngest possible ages so that when they inevitably becomes sexually active they have not only effective tools for protecting themselves against this threat but practical knowledge about how to properly use such tools.
- Do you believe that racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male?
Yes. We must always be sensitive to other peoples' cultural differences and not discriminate against anyone based on those differences. If searching everyone at random is what it takes to avoid the possibility of offending anyone who might perceive their being singled out for searches as acts of discrimination, then we must avoid that possibility at all costs.
- Do you believe that racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city?
Yes. When people are discriminated against because of their race, they feel oppressed and have no choice but to turn to what others might consider less desirable means of removing themselves out from under that oppression. So violent crime is the only means they have of expressing their anger—a way of lashing out, if you will—at the injustices they see all around them as a result of that oppression. Although poverty is a symptom (not cause) of this oppression, it is still another reason people who are living under oppressed conditions in our inner cities have for "illegally" obtaining what has been wrongly and unfairly denied them by our society.
- Do you believe that it is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation?
Yes. There is a wall of separation between church and state, enshrined in our constitution, which must always be maintained. Forcing students who may not believe in the same "god" (or in any "god" for that matter) to sit through what in essence amounts to state-mandated acceptance of one particular belief system is intolerant both of cultural and religious difference and of the way some students are offended by any form of religious expression. We must therefore always be careful that nothing in any governmental act such as a school graduation is ever allowed to upset, intrude on, or offend the religious or personal sensibilities of the individual, so that we can ensure they are never made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable.
- Do you believe that no culture is morally superior to any other?
Yes. We are all human beings, each with basically the same needs, wants, and desires as every other human being. Equality of the individual must also include equality of their cultures if we are to eradicate once and for all the scourges of discrimination and intoleration which have plagued humankind for far too long. When all cultures are considered by everyone to be equal, no culture will ever have cause again to oppress or otherwise threaten another; and the world will be a much peaceful and safer place for every human being.
A perfect score! You have in store for you a bright future as a professional idiotarian major at any one of our country's most prestigious colleges and universities.
Thanks to Director_Mitch for the link to this very unique auction.
SIZE 12 WEDDING DRESS/GOWN NO RESERVE - SURE IS A BEAUTY! CHEAP! USED ONLY ONCE!
Apart from his dhimmitude belief that "tension and bitterness" led to Nick's sadistic beheading, he's right that his slaying will only "heighten the resolve of ordinary Americans to stay and make something happen."
- Rendell Says Berg's Death Heightens US Resolve
by KYW's Tony Romeo
Governor Rendell believes the death of Nick Berg will accomplish the opposite of what his killers intended.
Rendell says his deepest condolences go out to the family of Nick Berg, whose death, he says, seems so senseless in the light of the fact that Berg wanted to help rebuild Iraq.
The governor says Berg's death points out the need for fair but swift justice for those Americans responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners:
"I think the sooner that we find out who was responsible, give them their day in court, and if found guilty, mete out significant discipline, the better it will be for all of the tension and bitterness that's going on on Iraq, today."
But the governor also says that if Berg's killers thought that their horrific act would weaken the resolve of Americans to finish the job in Iraq, he believes they are sorely mistaken:
"One of the things that must be clear to these terrorists is that these type of activities are not going to cause us to lose our stomach and cut and run. Rather, in my judgement, they'll heighten the resolve of ordinary Americans to stay and make something happen."
Portions of Nick Berg's emails to his family are quoted in KYW's " Locals Iraqis React To Nick Berg's Murder."
Enduring gratitude from this fellow citizen, too, who considers it a job well and faithfully done. (Hat tips: Misha I, Brian B, Blackfive.)
- Rochester, N.Y. Marine, receives Navy Cross
Submitted by: MCB Camp Pendleton
Story Identification #: 200456162723
Story by Cpl. Jeremy Vought
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.(May 6, 2004) -- Marine Capt. Brian R. Chontosh received the Navy Cross Medal from the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, during an awards ceremony Thursday at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Training Center, Twentynine Palms, Calif.
Three other Marines received medals for valor at the same ceremony.
Chontosh, 29, from Rochester, N.Y., received the naval service's second highest award for extraordinary heroism while serving as Combined Anti-Armor Platoon Commander, Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom March 25, 2003.
[ full story ]
Bob Lonsberry, also of Rochester, has some biographical information as well as commentary and this quote from Capt. Chontosh's citation:
“By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.”
- 10 USC Sec. 6242. Navy cross (01/22/02)
The President may award a Navy cross of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Navy or Marine Corps, distinguishes himself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a medal of honor - - (1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
- (2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
- (3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES, Subtitle C - Navy and Marine Corps, PART II - PERSONNEL, CHAPTER 567 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 389; Pub. L. 88-77, Sec. 2(2), July 25, 1963, 77 Stat. 94.)
Historical and Revision Notes: Source (U.S. Code) 34 U.S.C. 356. Feb. 4, 1919, ch. 14, Sec. 3, 40 Stat. 1056; renumbered Sec. 2 and amended Aug. 7, 1942, ch. 551, Sec. 1, 56 Stat. 743.
The word "award" is substituted for the word "present" to cover the determination of the recipient as well as the actual presenting of the decoration. The words "but not in the name of Congress" are omitted, since a decoration is presented in the name of Congress only if the law so directs. The words "Navy or the Marine Corps" are substituted for the words "naval service of the United States" for clarity. To be eligible for the award, a person need not be a member of the naval service, but only serving in some capacity either with the Navy or with the Marine Corps.
AMENDMENTS: 1963 - Pub. L. 88-77 enlarged the authority to award the Navy cross, which was limited to those cases in which persons distinguished themselves in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, to permit its award for extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a medal of honor, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States, while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
photo: USMC Vietnam Tankers
Once your enemy rejects the terms of the Geneva Convention, you are no longer under any obligation to follow its provisions with regard to him.
Al Qaeda Leader Beheads U.S. Civilian in Iraq
Tue May 11, 2004 02:32 PM ET
By Ghaida Ghantous
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq beheaded an American civilian and vowed more killings in revenge for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, an Islamist Web site said Tuesday.
A poor quality videotape on the site showed a man dressed in orange overalls sitting bound on a white plastic chair in a bare room, then on the floor with five masked men behind him.
"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael... I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah," said the bound man, adding he was from Philadelphia.
After one of the masked men read out a statement, they pushed Berg to the floor and shouted "God is greatest" above his screams as one of them sawed his head off with a large knife then held it aloft for the camera.
The Web site said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top ally of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, was the man who cut off Berg's head. The statement read out before the killing was signed off with Zarqawi's name and dated May 11.
[ more ]
How many new schools were opened in Iraq today? How much extra crude oil was pumped into the tankers leaving Basra this week? How many more local and regional councils were, for the first time in the country's history, freely elected all across Iraq last month? Where did the terrorists get the VX nerve gas they planned to attack Amman, Jordan with in March? What's the home state of the young woman seen in a photograph that was taken last year and, until now, was being used as untainted evidence in a criminal investigation?
W est Virginia. That's the only answer you've got if you were trying to get some from AOL News to any of those questions. But it wasn't about the source of that much more real and deadly form of gas:
Updated: 08:19 PM EDT
More Bad News May Be on the Way for Bush
By TERENCE HUNT, AP
"For Bush." Not for the six or seven actual abusers of Iraqi detainees. Not for Rumsfeld. Not for the Department of Defense. Not for any generals. Not for our military. Not for the United States of America. Just Bush.
WASHINGTON (May 8) - In one of the darkest weeks of his administration,
Just like those that began with this:
President Bush saw America's reputation sullied, the U.S. effort in Iraq damaged and his own campaign for re-election clouded. And more bad news may be on the way.
"For him" and "I hope" you forgot to scribble in there, Hunt. As far as sullying our reputation, that's only in the eyes of those who already hate America's guts, including the Asshaturated Press. Had Saddam Hussein ordered leashes tied on the men, women and children he was about to send off to their mass graves, his reputation might have been as sullied as it should have been in those exact same eyes—that is, before America and her real friends "unilaterally" put a permanent end to his own special brand of prisoner humiliation—but I doubt it.
Ask the relatives of the "abused" we're still digging out of those graves, as well as the survivors of the true torture chambers he set up throughout Iraq (at least those survivors whose tongues he didn't order cut out), whether the effort of freeing them from all that forever has been "damaged" by the criminal acts of an unrepresentative few. Was AP ever as concerned about the effect of letting Saddam and his battalions of sadists and brutes remain unaccountable for their very real torture of millions over a period of decades, as it is now about the "bad news" that, on one night, some unfit individuals in one MP unit humiliated a dozen or so bad guys we caught? The MPs will be punished without AP's insistence. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, AP failed to demonstrate any such insistence over Saddam Hussein's constant, widespread brutalities before our coalition removed him from power.
While the world already has been horrified by pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the Pentagon warns there are many more photos and videos that have not been disclosed.
[AFP/Getty photo; caption:] Iraqis sit in the lobby of a local hotel in Baghdad as they watch President Bush during his apology to Muslims for prison abuse.
They show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman," embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress.
From the White House to Capitol Hill, policy-makers are worried that the United States faces lasting damage abroad - particularly in the Middle East - from the pictures of naked Arab men being tortured and humiliated by American soldiers, the same forces sent to Iraq to liberate the country from Saddam Hussein's torture and repression.
Nice of you to mention Saddam's leash-tying, and naked pile-on activities, Hunt. Except Hussein had a cigar hanging out of his mouth, not a ciggie. So the pictures of "naked Arab men being tortured[!]" by the Ghraib Seven—all of whom are being now brought to justice—are undoubtedly much worse than the result of SH Torture & Landscaping® services pictured above, courtesy of the Fedayeen Forty-Thousand—none of whom AP gives a flip about when publishing reports about Horrors in Iraq.
Analysts describe the pictures as great recruiting tools for al-Qaida and other extremist groups and said they undermine America's claims to a moral high ground. Rumsfeld said the impact was "radioactive."
Let's see, we're already the Great Satan™, our troops are Satan's Occupiers, our civilian contract workers are Satan's Mercenaries, and the American people are Satan's Zionist Crusaders & Conspirators. Gosh, I'd hate to think this might cause us to lose that "moral high ground." Terrorists are using the pics, all right—but not as recruiting material. More likely they're now part of an addendum to al-Qaida's terrorist training manual showing how to treat innocent captives before you slice their throats.
Bush, in his weekly radio address Saturday, said, "They are a stain on our country's honor and reputation." He said the abuses were the work of a few and do not reflect the overall character of the 200,000 members of the U.S. military who have served in Iraq in the past year.
A stain we have every intention of removing by bringing the perpetrators to justice and continuing our mission to help the Iraqi people build a strong, democratic country for themselves in the heart of the Middle East. The blood stains left by terrorists in the rubble of mosques and market squares which they blew up, killing hundreds of women and children in the process, will however never be removed from their minds.
Six months from the November elections, Iraq weighs heavily on the president.
Excuse us while we politicize the war now, folks. We'll be back to our unbiased reporting of just the facts in a minute never.
April was the deadliest month yet for American soldiers in Iraq and May is off to a bloody start.
Doncha just love it, A Pee? But these are stains on just the reputation of our cowardly enemies, who hide behind children and inside holy places, or plant bombs along roadsides which have killed more Iraqi woman than American troops. Those we have no intention of ever running from or forgetting.
On the diplomatic front, the administration does not know who will take power in Iraq from the United States in a June 30 handover.
Costs are soaring. The administration has sent Congress an unexpected $25 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Day after day, the extraordinary apologies from the president and his top deputies dominated the news.
Bad News 3, Good News 26,298,900. So which side does AP go to bat for in its stories?
| More on This Story | · Rumsfeld Says Scandal May Worsen
· Female Soldier Charged in Iraqi Abuse
· West Virginia Women Symbolize War's Glory, Shame
· Shiite Gunmen Attack British Troops in Basra
| | · AOL Search: News From Iraq |
Pollsters and presidential experts are scratching their heads over how the prisoner scandal will affect Bush's re-election hopes.
"There's such a big question mark there, it's unlike anything we've seen before," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.
"The public is very critical of (Bush's) management of Iraq. They don't think he has a clear plan for bringing it to a successful conclusion, but a thin majority of the public has been hanging in with that it was the right decision to go to war," Kohut said. "This could be the event which makes people say 'Oh, we did make a mistake.'"
As much as you hope for that, Hunt, Kohut, AP, et al., it's just not going to happen. Not while we know any loss means a terrorist win, and that every retreat brings the terrorists closer again to attacking this country. Once more the American people show how much elitists like yourselves really don't have any clue.
Political scientist James Thurber of American University likened the Iraq images to the infamous Vietnam pictures of a naked young girl fleeing a napalm attack and a Viet Cong prisoner being executed on a Saigon street.
"Oh, don't ever compare what went on for decades in Abu Ghraib under Saddam's management with what went on one night there under ours." But it's perfectly okay to compare the latter to Viet Nam's most infamous images. (Thurber omitted saying that then 9-year-old Kim Phuc, who was photographed by Nick Ut, was promptly given "first-class medical attention" by us and is now free and a Canadian citizen, as well as that Bay Lop, the Viet Cong prisoner who was executed by Vietnamese National Police chief Gen. Nguyen Loc Loan, had committed the war atrocity of "wiping out" the entire family of one of Loan's officers. But don't let facts like these throw you. They might get in the way of AP's politicizing the war as Another Vietnam™.)
Referring to the new pictures, Thurber said, "That's what we're going to remember about Iraq. It's just not going to go away. That may have a lasting and negative effect on his campaign. It certainly does right now and I think you'll see it in the polls immediately."
"I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope," Thurber also omitted.
Support for Bush's handling of foreign policy and terrorism, usually his strongest issue, was at 50 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday. That compares with 55 percent a month ago.
Notice no comparison here to "Americans' Support for Vietnam" (44.2 percent in 1971). Just more of them pesky facts AP won't bother considering.
Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon official during the Clinton administration, said it was too early to tell whether Rumsfeld would be able to keep his job.
"The real issue is there's more stuff that's going to come out that is troubling, beyond humiliation and torture. Deaths I think," said Campbell, director of international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Unfortunately for AP, no pictures included; so it won't be giving those issues as much ink. Also, CSIS used to have credibility when Sam Nunn was in charge, before Klinton's Kronies & Krackheads engineered a regime change there.
"This has been a difficult few weeks. Yet our forces will stay on the offensive, finding and confronting the killers and terrorists."
-President Bush
|
"And there's going to be quite a long record of warnings that were either ignore [sic] or dismissed. And that I think is going to be problematic," Campbell said.
Lawmakers worried the pictures would harm U.S. credibility for years, perhaps decades. While the United States champions freedom and democracy in Iraq, the pictures show vivid scenes of cruelty and insensitivity.
Problematic is how far liberals will stoop to use this in their sad attempts to politicize the war even more, before they realize the American people have long moved on to something else.
Splashed across front pages across the Middle East and around the world, the pictures may undermine "the substantial gains toward the goal of peace and freedom in various operation areas of the world, most particularly Iraq," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hardly that, Senator. Not when the Iraqi people are reading their papers next to newly built schools and out from under the all-peering eyes of Bathist Party secret policemen who would kill each one's whole family if he forgot to fill in S-A-D-D-A-M for the answer to the crossword-puzzle clue "Who you're going to vote for in the next 'election.'"
Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the committee's top Democrat, said the abuses "dishonored our military and our nation and they made the prospects for success in Iraq even more difficult than they already are."
Added Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.: "This was a political and public relations Pearl Harbor."
Golly, ya'll think so? Well, heck, let's just bug out now since it's all that bad. That'll show the terrorists "these colors don't run."
Bush pledged in his radio address that the United States would not be thrown into retreat.
"This has been a difficult few weeks," Bush said. "Yet our forces will stay on the offensive, finding and confronting the killers and terrorists who are trying to undermine the progress of democracy in Iraq."
05/08/04 20:02 EDT
Thank you, Mr. President. At least the American people know you're not going to let something like this stop us from actually winning World War IV.
One more question that wasn't answered by AOL News either: Was AP around during WWII? Must not have been because we suffered more casualties in any of Roosevelt's "darkest weeks" fighting Nazis than we have or ever will fighting Islamofascists, yet still somehow managed to achieve a stunning victory for Freedom.
The Biritish side of the Daily Mirror /CBS photographs scoop is that the "pics are fake":
- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has condemned the pictures [apparently showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British troops] as appalling - if they are genuine - as the majority of the British press voiced doubts that they were authentic.
Simon Treselyan, a trainer for 19 years with Britain's elite army commando unit the SAS, said there were several clues showing the pictures had clearly been rigged.
He told the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian that neither the weapon used by the supposed torturers, nor the truck shown in the pictures, said to be a Bedford, had been used in Iraq.
Former military intelligence services member Terry Foley told The Sun that British troops now used a more-modern arm, the SA80 MK-2.
Lack of injuries on the supposed victim
Other experts highlighted inconsistencies which suggested the pictures had been faked, such as squeaky-clean uniforms, boots cross-laced instead of straight-laced as is the custom and different cartridge belts from the army's standard issue.
Sources close to the Queen's Lancashire regiment also highlighted the lack of injuries on the supposed victim and the fact that his T-shirt looked remarkably clean for someone who had undergone an eight-hour beating.
Richard Mills, a photographer for three years with the Royal Air Force before joining The Times daily, said the truck was too clean and would have been full of sand and dirt in southern Iraq. [emphases mine]
T he report prints the quotes of two unnamed soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire regiment saying, "We told the truth." Why aren't we given the names of those who say they're telling it?
We're given the names of long-time veterans and experts such as Simon Treselyan, Terry Foley, and Richard Mills pointing out verifiable inconsistencies in the Daily Mirror photographs. It's convenient to say—especially when your country's troops are fighting a war you adamantly oppose—that, "It is a fundamental principle of journalism, enshrined in law, that sources are protected. The Mirror is helping the inquiry as much as it can but that is a line we cannot and will not cross." After all, crossing lines is the terrorists' job. But don't you worry, Mirror, should the pics prove fake, you can always conveniently claim you were the victims of a hoax too. An anti-war outlet that's not telling us the whos, whats, whens, wheres, hows and whys relating to these photographs, won't be getting me to accept them at face value either.
The Canadian press is at least including some of these questions too about the photographs' authenticity in its reports: "One senior officer, however, refused to rule out that the newspaper had become the victim of a hoax. 'The pictures are clearly posed,' he said. 'We can't see whether the man with a sandbag over his head is an Iraqi or not.'"
Update:
More calls for Mirror to name the soldiers who apparently sold the paper the photos; and Mirror's editor admitting problems over photos. (Hat tip: It's Happening.)
Further, if they are soldiers, then these unnamed two violated British law by failing to at least tell their superiors about the alleged crime, choosing instead to sell photographs of it to a newspaper and never telling any official: "Colonel Bob Stewart, commander of the UK peacekeeping force in Bosnia, said: 'The situation regarding soldiers who have witnessed a war crime is that it is their legal responsibility to stop it and then to report it as well. They haven't done either. If the images are real then they are guilty of complicity in a war crime. It's as simple as that.'" That's why "No10 admitted it had no idea if the pictures were genuine or fakes." Neither of the "soldiers" filed any report.
Recently leaked by the head of the Massachusetts National Guard (Hat tips: Michael Friedman, Steven Hayward and StrangeCosmos.com)—
2004 Democratic National Convention Schedule
6:00 p.m. — 6:15 p.m.
Opening Flag Burning Ceremony
6:20 p.m. – 6:21 p.m.
Opening Secular Prayers
officiated by Rev. Jesse Jackson
and Rev. Al Sharpton
6:30 p.m. – 6:50 p.m.
Anti-War Concert
performed by Barbra Streisand
6:55 p.m. – 6:59 p.m.
Toast
proposed by Ted Kennedy
7:00 p.m. – 7:05 p.m.
Tribute Theme
to France
7:10 p.m. – 7:20 p.m.
Collection of Offerings
for al-Zawahri Defense Fund
7:25 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Tribute Theme
to Germany
7:45 p.m. – 8:20 p.m.
Anti-War Rally
moderated by Michael Moore
8:25 p.m. – 8:29 p.m.
Toast
proposed by Ted Kennedy
8:30 p.m. – 8:55 p.m.
Terrorist Appeasement Workshop
open to all Dhimmicrats
9:00 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Gay Marriage Ceremony
both male and female couples
9:30 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
(Intermission)
10:00 p.m. – 10:05 p.m.
Posting the Iraqi Colors
carried by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins
10:10 p.m. – 10:15 p.m.
Re-Enactment of Qerry's Fake Medal Toss
lead by Micah Wright and Ted Rall
10:20 p.m. – 10:29 p.m.
’Yeeearrrrrrrg!’
cameo by Howard Dean
10:30 p.m. – 10:35 p.m.
Abortion Demonstration
conducted by N.A.R.A.L.
10:40 p.m. – 10:49 p.m.
Toast
proposed by Ted Kennedy
10:50 p.m. – 10:55 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance to the United Nations
lead by Jim McDermott
11:00 p.m. – 11:10 p.m.
Multiple Gay Marriage Cermony
threesomes, mixed and same sex
11:15 p.m. – 11:25 p.m.
Maximizing Welfare Workshop
facilitated by Nancy Pelosi
11:30 p.m. – 11:55 p.m.
’Free Saddam’ Pep Rally
moderated by Scott Ritter
11:59 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.
Toast
proposed by Ted Kennedy
12:00 a.m.
Nomination of Democratic Candidate
chaired first by Robert Torricelli
then by Frank Lautenberg
Mama washes out a craptoonist's nasty, disrespectful, ungrateful mouth with a cartoon of her own:
S ee the America-hater's original cartoon (the same one that was pulled by MSNBC, but not of course by Washington Post), then send a much more coherent, polite and rational comment to his boss Lee Salem at Universal.
While you're waiting on word about the pinko's pending pink slip, please pay a visit to protein wisdom and read "Ted Rall's Vagina Internal Monologue" by Jeff Goldstein.
(Hat tips: His Royal Darthness Misha I and Imperial SpinDoctor Kate.)
The Guardian reports, "There have been claims that the photographs [of British military guards] were taken by MoD investigators reconstructing allegations of abuse....One inconsistency was that the lorry pictured was a Bedford MK. 'The MK ... was not deployed by the army to Iraq at all. That vehicle can't operate with the fuel that was available in Iraq.'"
P hotographs in and of themselves offer us little context. Who took them and where, and who and what we're seeing in them, have to be provided. In this case, the likes of Daily Mirror and CBS are providing us such details. But an overwhelming amount of evidence consistently shows that the only people standing between us and the bloodthirsty terrorists are exceptionally brave men and woman, whose character and valor, even in the direst circumstances, are most uncommon, and who have rightly earned the eternal gratitude and complete respect of not just this Nation but of every peace-loving country of the world. So it is incongruent, to say the least, that anyone wearing the same uniform could be party to such disgraceful, un-American acts. A military force comprised of over two hundred thousand servicemen and women in a wide theater of operations is bound to include a very small number who stray from their training or, even more rarely, forget their oaths, and do things that violate rules of conduct and engagement or the military code. We demand that, in each case, these violators be brought to justice.
The investigation of this matter will determine whether the photographs are genuine and prosecutions of those involved warranted, or the product of a hoax designed to undermine our country's war effort.
In either case, the perpetrators will be held accountable for their actions.
My contribution to raising public awareness about the need to eradicate every infestation of rabidly lying moonbats wherever it may occur-
Just the thought of this faux Army Ranger claiming to be an al-Qerry-like soldier against war is enough to warrant a prolonged series of intensely painful rabies vaccinations—all reserved solely for the Micah Wrights of this world.
Reading about such a sorry but totally predictable episode of moonbattery leaves the L'Utopia in need of a booster inoculation of its own, making now a most fitting time for inauguration of its AMA, FDA & Surgeon General approved cLUe shots:
A correspondent from AP's counterpart in the Arab media, "loyal" to the lands of Islam, filed this report.
F ALLUJAH, 14 Rabee' al-Awwal 1425 AH - Despite repeated fataawas that Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers "crush" the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people, a source close to the Syrian facilitators directing anti-occupation forces in this besieged Iraqi city say recent heavy casualties have caused them to postpone further operations until sufficient reinforcements can arrive.
Although the number of martyr casualties is seldom if ever mentioned in kufr news accounts, such as from the Associated Press and Reuters, and never as such in Arab reports, the source—who spoke on condition of anonymity—claims that at least 715 have been killed in last week's fighting alone, with about three times that many either wounded or captured.
These latest figures bring the total number of Jihaadists martyred in Iraq since the infidel-declared end of major combat operations, to 11,375. An estimated 30,000 more have been wounded.
Asked if he thought this increasing toll would further undermine the already fragile public support for the militant struggle, the same source said it would prove difficult. "Our fight against Satan's U.S. troops is looking more and more like another Kuwait," he said, referring to the 1991 forced expulsion of President Saddam Hussein's military from the former Iraqi province following several disastrous engagements with the Americans.
In Jeddah, there was alarm expressed by several leading Jihaad opponents that the struggle against the pagans was becoming "untenable." Quoting from the April 10 fataawa issued by the imam at the Grand Mosque in Makkah, Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim, a spokesman for the No Jihad In Anyone's Name group said, "While the imam points out how infidels 'want us to believe that destruction is reform, killing is life, disorder is order and injustice is justice,' it is our jihaadic aggression that is delaying their quick departure from Iraq and an end to the Coalition's presence there." He called on jihaadist leaders to stop accepting financial assistance for their movement from Iran because its rulers are "sworn enemies" of the Iraqi people.
The NJIAN spokesman went on to say that "the sooner we stop fighting, the sooner the foreigners will leave and let Iraq finish its recovery from decades of unprogressive rule by the Hussein Administration."
Former Sheikh Fazlul Rifa'i Hamzah, who himself has been the subject of three fataawas for leading the anti-Jihaad group "Resisting Evil People Lifts You," declared at a recent gathering of followers that the Iraqi jihaad movement was an attempt by Syrian- and Iranian-backed militants to weaken Iraq's post-occupation standing in the Arab world. "We know who stands to gain the most from the militant struggle, and it's not the people of Iraq," he said.
Meanwhile, the source said an attempted ambush by mostly Syrian-trained militants on U.S. Marines based in Tikrit went awry after the militants were spotted from the air by an unmanned surveillance drone. "Apparently the crusader-Zionist alliance's troops discovered our position and opened fire, leaving at least another 50 martyrs." That number could not be independently confirmed, and no casualties were reported on the Americans' side.
18:59 Makka Time, 15:59 GMT
al-Qerry's favorite main course for breakfast, lunch, snacks, dinner, supper,..., is now the first result again when searched for on Google.
A nother round of congratulations to Ken and all fellow anti- waffles bloggers on the continued success of the campaign he started.
Now to drop one on Soros and his ShoveOff.org site, which has wasted what I hope is a good chunk of its funds on a whole Google ad just to counter that waffles result.
How about lies or all lies?
Seems Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry believes it's better to have practically no voting record at all than to give American taxpayers their money's worth.
Z ero. That's how many times al-Qerry bothered to show up and vote on anything in the Senate before March. Of the 77 Senate roll call votes this year, this political truant (as the Boston Herald calls him) has missed all six votes held in January and all sixteen in February. Forty-two were held in March and thirteen in April. But the only times he bothered to show up and vote was in March, and only because ( not surprisingly) he wanted to gut the ban on frivolous lawsuits against lawful gun manufacturers (roll #24-#30), cover his butt on tax cuts, national defense, the budget, and Veterans' healthcare (roll #36-#40), and sink Laci and Conner's Law (roll #61 and #63). That's 14 roll call votes out of March's 42. He participated in none last month.
Contrary to what his advisor Michael Meehan claims, voting is the largest part of being a U.S. senator. It is the only part that actually matters to the citizens who elected him. Bills and nominations aren't decided by the whole Senate without such voting.
If a senator ups and decides to never, ever vote on the Senate floor, the state he or she represents is effectively deprived its equal suffrage in the Senate. Not even an amendment to the Constitution can do that without that state's consent.
But does this apply to Qetchup Qing Qerry? He apparently doesn't think so. No matter that Article V of our Constitution clearly says, "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." To him, representing himself on the campaign trail is obviously more important than representing The Children™ and other people of his state in our Senate.
As a U.S. Senator, Qerry is compensated by us taxpayers "for his services" at the tune of $158,100 a year, or $13,175 a month. Voting "Aye," "No," or at least "Present" on legislation and other business before the full Senate (hat tip: lgf & andthenblammo) is the sole reason the people of Massachusetts hired him, and why all us Americans pay his salary. Sitting in a plush office making phone calls to special interest groups and lobbyists, popping in to make a speech for C-SPAN2's audience then disappearing, or standing on the Capitol's steps and using them as taxpayer-funded props for a campaign ad is not earning your keep. If I hired you to dig a hole and you did little more than lean on the shovel, there's no way I'm going to say you're entitled to any payments from me.
In 2003, part-timer Qerry was paid $154,700 but attended 36% of the Senate's roll call votes. On bills President Bush took a position on, the figure drops to 28%. This year he missed every vote in January, February, and April, and attended one-third of March's votes, while being paid $13,175 a month. That comes to $99,000 he should reimburse us taxpayers for the work he was supposed to do but didn't (or wasn't properly excused from) in 2003—plus $48,300 he should reimburse us for the same reason this year (so far)—for a grand total of $147,300 in unearned pay during the 108th Congress which he now owes us back.
Hanoi John, you haven't earned your senatorial pay and benefits. You aren't doing the people's business.
It's time for you to resign your Senate seat and let the governor of your state appoint a person who will represent the people of Massachusetts there full-time.
|
|
LC Local 666, VRWC
Solidarity!
   
& more failures
Site Feed
Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email
Posts
Monday, May 31, 2004
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Monday, May 17, 2004
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Friday, May 14, 2004
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Sunday, May 09, 2004
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Monday, May 03, 2004
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Archives
|
|
