Think "Donahue" Was Cancelled Because Of Bad Ratings? Think Again!

MSNBC: "They're scared, and they decided to take the coward's road and slant towards the conservative crowd that watch Fox News."

While the official announcement wasn't a surprise to anyone working at the network, MSNBC officially canceled the primetime show "Donahue" on Tuesday, citing disappointing ratings. But as it turns out, the picture isn't as clear as it initially seems.

While "Donahue" does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

The study claimed that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

In other words, Donahue was sacrificed for the sake of the new PC - Patriotic Correctness. McCarthyism is alive and well at MSNBC! more

Bush Admits That Counterterror Budget Is Meager; Fears Democratic Challengers For The White House

Perhaps you saw this yesterday. Perhaps you didn't. However, I feel it is important to post again. Prime example of what a dumbass Bush really is. He signs a budget into law that doesn't appropriate near enough money for protecting Americans at home. The National Governors Association expresses deep concern about their ability to pay for the equipment and training needed to prepare for a terrorist attack, Bush then says he is "disappointed" with the Republican-authored spending package because it has failed to provide adequate money for local counterterrorism programs. And he says Congress is to blame!

C'mon, republican readers, help me here. Aren't you guys supposedly the party of personal responsibility? Where is Bush taking responsibility for this? As usual, he is trying to pass the buck. Since Bill Clinton's not a factor, he wants to hang this on Congress.

Bush says that Congress "did not respond to the $3.5 billion we asked for — they not only reduced the budget that we asked for, they earmarked a lot of the money."

However, he is referring to the $3.5 billion that the White House requested more than a year ago for state and local governments to pay for counterterrorism equipment and training. This is a prime example of Bush trying to merge two issues to save his ass. That $3.5 billion was NOT part of his budget package!

Republican Congressional leaders are insisting they provided the full $3.5 billion sought by President Bush for so-called first responders, like local fire and police departments. Go ahead, plug Bush first responders into Google and see what you get!

Now, however, Bush denies that money was earmarked for local fire and police departments - the very groups he defined as first responders!

"We weren't talking about community policing programs. We weren't talking about grants to buy bulletproof vests for police officers." said a White House official.

Oh, no? Then what were you talking about? Seems bulletproof vests are a good investment for cops who have to face down terrorists with guns!

State and local leaders from both political parties have joined in the criticism of Bush, saying that they are desperate for the promised federal help.

"We have a lot of police agencies in the state that were assured by the administration, repeatedly, that this money was on the way," said Gov. Gary Locke of Washington, a Democrat.

He said that many police and fire departments had bought hazardous-materials protective suits and other counterterrorism equipment in the expectation that they would be reimbursed by the federal government.

"And now," Governor Locke said, "they're going to have to scramble to terminate other programs in order to cover those costs."

Aides to Republican leaders said they would not publicly respond to Mr. Bush for now. But the aides accused the White House of bowing to pressure from Congressional Democrats, including likely presidential candidates, who have charged that Mr. Bush is putting the nation at risk by spending too little on domestic security.

Support for Bush's re-election falls below 50 percent

The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.

Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.

Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December.



If You Believe In God, You've Just Got To Wonder: Lightning zaps hole in wing of Gov. Bush's plane!

Gov. Jeb Bush's plane was struck by lightning that zapped a hole in a wing during a flight Thursday from Tallahassee to Orlando, a spokeswoman said. None of the seven people onboard was injured, said aide Alia Faraj. Bush said he wasn't scared, but quickly left to change his pants.

Imagine if the Rightwing Media Had Given Clinton A Chance!

Conservatives like to whine about the "liberal" media. They especially point out (without evidence I might add) that the media was on Bill Clinton's side during his two terms as our last legitimately elected president. Of course, Clinton won his political battles so often and with such decisiveness the media really had no choice but to report it.

Now, however, one admitted Republican journalist comes clean. Tucker Carlson, formerly a staff writer at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock, a contributor to New York Magazine and The Weekly Standard, a columnist for Readers Digest, a writer for dozens of magazines and newspapers, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, GQ and Forbes, and current co-host of CNN's Crossfire said on Crossfire on 02/27/03:

"... at the beginning of the Clinton administration I had friends -- and I'll admit this who hated Bill Clinton, so intensely that it drove them insane. They became bad journalists, they became unproductive Americans "

For more about the rightwing smear machine against Bill Clinton, click here and here.

Florida's Graham to Run for President

Sen. Bob Graham is a proven vote-getter in Florida, one of America's essential swing states, and he has quietly entered the crowded field for the Democratic presidential nomination, filing papers in Florida and Washington yesterday to set up a campaign committee.

Graham brings to the race one of the most impressive résumés in politics. It includes two successful terms as governor, five statewide victories in a populous, moderate state and leadership of his party's senatorial campaign committee. As chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, he spent last year warning the nation that the Bush administration is not doing enough to protect the homeland from terrorist attacks.

Secret, Scary Plans: Bush Junta To Attack North Korea With Nuclear Bombs?

Will the Bush administration be the second adminstration to use nukes in Asia? Did little Bush Junior throw a temper tantrum when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (one of the few senior Bush aides who knows anything about Korea) told Congress that the U.S. would have to talk to North Korea? Click!



out...

UPDATE: Bush Concedes That His PASSED Counterterror Budget DOES NOT Protect American Citizens From Terrorist Attacks On American Soil. This Man's Incompetence Is Putting YOUR Life At Risk! And He Blames Congress! (Because he couldn't blame Clinton!)

Re sponding to criticism from Democrats and to the mounting concern of state and local governments, the White House is now saying that the long delayed government spending plan for the year does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil.

After initially praising the giant spending package that was shaped by Congressional Republicans, the White House has reversed itself in recent days, conceding in a series of public statements that a closer reading of the 3,000-page spending bill shows that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged. President Bush signed the bill into law earlier this month.

The latest acknowledgment came this week from the president himself.

In a speech here to the National Governors Association, where governors expressed deep concern about their ability to pay for the equipment and training needed to prepare for a terrorist attack, Mr. Bush said he was "disappointed" with the Republican-authored spending package because it had failed to provide adequate money for local counterterrorism programs. And he said that Congress was to blame. more

Bush has abandoned Afghanistan

Democrats Appropriate 295 million dollars in humanitarian and reconstruction funds

Democratic Senator Joseph Biden has accused the Bush administration of abandoning its long-term commitments in Afghanistan and warned the same could happen in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

"I think they've already given up the ghost in Afghanistan. They've basically turned it over to the warlords," he told reporters.

pResident George W. Bush's budget for 2003 did not request any money to help rebuild Afghanistan, forcing US lawmakers to step in and add some 295 million dollars in humanitarian and reconstruction funds. more

"We want to be a continuing part of the new era of hope in Afghanistan," said Bush on Oct. 11, at an event highlighting U.S. humanitarian assistance in that country. He added, "We are helping the people to now recover from years of tyranny and oppression. We're helping Afghanistan to claim its democratic future, and we're helping that nation to establish public order and safety."

It appears Bush has, indeed, abandoned Afghanistan - going back on his word again! Pity the citizens of Iraq when this lying warmongering thug is through with them.

Islamic World Considers Oil as Anti-War Weapons

Leaders of Islamic countries Wednesday threw their support behind an initiative by France and Germany to avert war on Iraq and said they were considering using their oil to exert pressure on those in favor of an attack. Participants praised a resolution presented at the United Nations this week by France and Germany that suggests giving the U.N. weapons inspectors another four months to do their work in Iraq.

"We should make common cause with countries that are against war in Iraq, namely European countries such as France, Germany, Belgium and also Russia," Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said. "I hope by making a common cause with them we will be able to exert some influence on the United States." more

The Bush adminstration responded by revealing that Al Qeada has a training facility in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein often vacations there, and the Malaysian government allows Malaysian children to pick on good little christian kids there. A UN resolution to disarm Malaysia was immediatly suggested.

Oil could reach 80 US dollars barrel in extended war: Forecast

The price of oil could reach 80 U.S. dollars a barrel - four times the long-term average - in the worst case scenario of an extended war spreading outside Iraq, the New Zealand Treasury predicted in a report released on Thursday.

The most immediate impact of a war in Iraq would be a rise in the oil price to about 40 U.S. dollars a barrel, as happened during the 1990 Gulf War, Treasury officials told Finance Minister Michael Cullen.

But this could double for a period of time in a prolonged war spreading outside Iraq, the officials said.

They said a short war of less than six weeks would have only a ``modest'' impact on global growth, lasting for about six months.

But a long war where the United States and its allies became bogged down or conflict spreads beyond Iraq would hit confidence, increase unemployment and make a global recession a ``distinct possibility'', the officials said.

When Hussein was our ally:

Iraq: Newly released documents reveal U.S. talk of regime change in the early 1980s - except then it was language condemning Iran for attempting to overthrow the government in Baghdad.

In an interview Tuesday with the Arab-language television network Al-Jazeera, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld laid out again the case for war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Among other crimes, he said, Iraq "used chemical weapons on its neighbor Iran."

The defense secretary has reason to remember that crime. It was taking place in December 1983, when Rumsfeld met with Hussein as a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan. But his mission then was to improve U.S.-Iraqi relations, assure Hussein that Iran was their common enemy and promote an oil pipeline project.

According to records of the meeting, Rumsfeld made no complaint to the Iraqi dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, conservatives will howl at this! "What 'records of the meeting' ... you're making that up... there was no meeting!" they'll say with a smirk. Ah, but there was!

"The National Security Archive, a nonprofit public affairs research group at George Washington University, published this week on its Web site recently declassified documents revealing the delicate diplomatic dance performed by the United States in the 1980s as it tilted toward Iraq and away from Iran."

At the time of Rumsfeld's visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas. He had harbored terrorists (though he had just expelled the infamous Abu Nidal) and had a well-established record of torturing and murdering domestic opponents.

The U.S. response? It dropped Iraq from the list of nations sponsoring terror, renewed diplomatic ties, and provided intelligence and aid to Iraq to prevent its defeat by Iran. more

To Republican Tom Delay: WHO is the party of appeasement?

On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called Democratic opponents of war in Iraq "reckless." DeLay assailed last weekend's "outrageous" speech by former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., to the Democratic National Committee. The applause that greeted Dean's speech "proves who the Democrat Party is," DeLay told reporters. "They are fast becoming the appeasement party."

But which party has the record for appeasement? more

Australian MP thrown out for breastfeeding her 'unelected' baby; Perhaps Congress should take notice?

An Australian MP was given a rude introduction to arcane political conventions yesterday when she was ejected from the chamber of the Victorian state parliament while breastfeeding her baby.

Kirstie Marshall, a former Olympic skier, was tapped on the shoulder by the Sergeant at Arms as she fed her 11-day-old daughter, Charlotte, while waiting for the start of question time. The transgression was not the breastfeeding. It was the act of bringing a non-elected person into the debating chamber.

Wow! If we had that policy in the United States, Bush would have to leave! But I guess Congress and the American people have to continue breastfeeding him.

Good News for New Yorkers!

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg would lose badly to a Democratic challenger if an election were held today, according to a poll released yesterday. New Yorkers would vote for a Democrat and against the incumbent mayor by a 48 percent to 27 percent margin, according to the poll released by Quinnipiac University.

Bush said: Ousting Saddam would help Mideast peace. No, really, he did. I'm not joking!

pResident Bush sought Wednesday to blunt criticism at home and abroad for his war plans, pledging that the United States and its partners would help transform a postwar Iraq into an "inspiring example of freedom" and bring stability to the Middle East. The only problem is the area in the Middle East that needs stability isn't Iraq. It's Israel and Palestine - and area our unelected frat boy has virtually ignored since taking office.

In a speech Wednesday night to a conservative think tank, Bush said the United States must lead an effort to end the threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and that America will help rebuild the country, much as it aided Germany and Japan after World War II. (but unlike America recently did in Afghanistan - leaving that war torn country to rot.)

Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap

The Bush Credibility Gap: Real Life Examples. A chronology of Bush saying one thing then doing another. Must see page! click

From The Mailbag

Hi,

I really love your blog and visit it every day with a great pleasure. As a french guy living in California, it is a kind of a relief to read opinions like yours. Thank you.

My only concern is about the "swastika" you insert on each picture of any republican. I don't think it is a good idea as it does not fit with the nature of what you say : your writing is interesting as it is a rational explanation of facts - and no fact tend to show that G.W Bush is a nazi. This swastika is just too rude.

Keep up the good work !

Pierre

Pierre, first of all welcome to Rightwing Slayer. Before recent events I ordered fries with my burgers. Now I order FRENCH fries! I told my wife to only buy french bottled water from now on.

I can understand your distaste for the swastika. After all, the Nazis shed lots of blood in your country. But the swastika has come to be known as a symbol of what Nazis represent. Racism, white supremacy, and fascism all under the guise of christianity. This describes the core ideals of the republican party perfectly. Sure, they have varied
domestic and foreign policies, personal tastes, and individual agendas like everyone else. But their core ideal, the driving force of the Republican party today, are the same as those of the Nazis. I don't expect the republicans to employ the same means the Nazis in Germany did to achieve their objectives, but the main objective of a white christian theocracy is the same.

And You're right. There are no facts that show Bush is a member of the Nazi party. But party affiliation does not a Nazi make. Consider the chiiling implications of the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II.

As for Bush's family, both of his grandfathers helped bankroll the German Nazi party during World War II. In fact, much of the Bush family fortune was made off of the Nazi halocaust. more

All of this, in my book, makes Bush a Nazi and if anyone is aligned with him, they are, too.

out...

... you're becoming one of the most talked about political blogs on the net... the only ones who haven't seemed to notice are other bloggers...

Bush Wants $320. Per Citizen To Fight Illegal Iraqi War! Call It A War Tax!

Remember the so-called $300. tax "refund" you recieved in 2001? Turns out it was just a loan - one that you now have to repay with $20. interest for the pleasure of killing thousands of Iraqi innocents. The Bush administration is preparing supplemental spending requests totaling as much as $95 billion for a war with Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. That comes out to about $320. out of each American's pocket - whether they want it to or not. Call it a war tax.

This $95 billion will be added into the already projected record budget defecit - money our grandchildren's children will be paying back. Sure, the conservatives who follow Bush like he is the messiah will puff up their chests and proudly proclaim they would gladly write a $320. check to take out Hussien and in truth, so would I, BUT this is more than just about Saddam. It is about control of the world's second largest oil supply. Those of us who support this action do so mainly out of blind faith in a President that has to bribe other countries to join our team. And when all is said and done, when the sands of Iraq are saturated with the blood of the innocents, and this one term president rides off into the pages of history in 2004, his citizen supporters will not have seen one dime of the profits Bush and his inner circle will have stashed away... and the entire Middle East will be burning for the next president to clean up...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of putting American servicemen and women in harm's way, wouldn't it be easier to send the Bush economic team to Iraq? Given what this team has done for our economy, it stands to reason they could destroy Saddam as well, prompting a revolution as well. - Dale Adams, Franklin, Ohio, e-mail to Crossfire 02.25.03

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House press corps laughs at Ari Fleischer's stupidity; Fleischer storms out of press conference in a huff!

Question from reporter: The French press is quoting actually two different diplomats from the United States State Department that -- they're highlighting that the United States is giving some sort of agreements or benefits to Colombia -- and other non-members of the Security Council --

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition.

With this statement, the White House press corp burst out laughing - hysterically! One reporter says "Yeah, whatever!" Fleischer then cuts the Q&A session short and storms out. What, does Fleischer expect us to believe that pResident Bush hasn't bought leaders for this war? Explain, then, the multi-billion dollar economic package - some in cold hard cash - that Bush had to promise Turkey up front to participate in this war. Doesn't that qualify as a "buyable leader," Mr. Fleischer?

If you want to see Mr. Fleischer's humiliating experience, click here. Skip to 29 minutes 30 seconds for all the fun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The government of Turkey has so little faith in George W. Bush that it's demanded economic aid up front in return for lending its bases. That should come as no surprise. After all, this George W. Bush's administration forgot to add reconstruction funds to Afghanistan in its new budget and reneged on its pledge to adequately fund first responders to domestic terrorist attacks. - James Carville, Crossfire 02.25.03

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.F.L.-C.I.O Promises To Unseat the President

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. promised today to do its utmost to unseat President Bush in the election next year, saying he is vulnerable because of growing dismay with his economic policies.

Using unusually harsh language, leaders of the labor federation said Mr. Bush favored the rich, hurt working families and had the worst record in creating jobs of any president since the 1930's.

The federation, which represents 13 million workers, promised to mobilize more members than ever before and create a tax-exempt political group to get out the vote and spread labor's message.

"There's an economic code red for America's working families who are in the worst economic crisis in two decades," the president of the federation, John J. Sweeney, said at a news conference here at its winter meeting. "Layoffs are at record highs. The number of people who can afford health care coverage is plummeting, and working people's paychecks are stretched paper thin."

To rally support against Mr. Bush, the federation released a six-page report that detailed 24 actions that the federation said were antilabor or antiworker. They included the administration's success in repealing ergonomics rules and stripping 60,000 airport screeners of the right to unionize. more

Powell speaks with forked tongue

It was interesting to hear Colin Powell accuse France and Germany of cowardice in not wanting to go to war. Or, as he put more succinctly, France and Germany 'are afraid of upholding their responsibility to impose the will of the international community'. Powell's speech brings up one of the most outrageous but least examined aspects of this whole war on Iraq business. I am speaking about the appalling collateral damage already being inflicted on the English language.
Perhaps the worst impact is on our vocabulary. 'Cowardice', according to Colin Powell, is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad in order to promote US oil interests in the Middle East. The corollary is that 'bravery' must be the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.

I suppose Tony Blair is 'brave' because he is willing to expose the people who voted for him to the threat of terrorist reprisals in return for getting a red carpet whenever he visits the White House, while Chirac is a 'coward' for standing up to the bigoted bullying of the extremist right-wing Republican warmongers who currently run the United States. more

Bush burning up the goodwill of U.S. allies

What profiteth a man if he gain regime change in Iraq and lose the whole world order in the process?

Back in 1999 and 2000, one of then-candidate George W. Bush’s chief campaign trail applause lines was his pledge to “strengthen our alliances.” He said they’d fallen into disrepair under the Clinton administration. Yet today — aside from a few autocracies in Central Asia — it’s difficult to find any countries in the world with which our alliances are stronger than they were two years ago. more

This conservative regrets voting for Clinton

Steven Louis Garner; Email: kandsgar@yahoo.com
I just stumbled on to your site. Very amusing. I love the Liberals referring to Rush Limbaugh as "entertainment." Without a doubt though, THIS site was entertaining.

Thanks! I like to frame the documented and sourced facts I present in an entertaining way. Whereas Rush Dimbaugh is entertaining in spite of the multiple lies he tells on a daily basis.

I voted for Clinton in 92'. This was the biggest mistake of my political life.

I know. Despite eight years of peace and prosperity, the largest peacetime economic expansion in history, the largest budget surplus in our history, millions of new jobs created, and many other economic wonders brought about by Clinton's 1993 Budget Accord, that little blowjob flushed it all way in some narrow minds like yours. It just eats you guys up that Clinton was so successful and the court appointed Bush administration is an international embarassment.

I especially LOVE that this site exists. When honest, good-hearted, down-to-earth average Americans find this site, it tells VOLUMES of what Liberalism can do to the human mind. (And soul, for you Greek Philosophers)

Yes! Isn't it great! I get e-mail everyday from honest, good-hearted, down-to-earth Americans who are so happy to have finally found a liberal that fights back against the thugs in power with facts, figures, and material from respected sources.

Keep up the good work. Americans will (AGAIN) laugh all the way to the voting booths.

Steven, that is what I'm counting on. According to the latest Pew Research Center poll, the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's economic policies. Further, only four in 10 in the Pew poll, thats 42 percent, said they approve of his tax policy - suggesting his $670 billion tax-cut plan, including a centerpiece proposal to slash the tax on investor dividends, has not shored up eroding confidence in his economic leadership.

The latest Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll states 54% think the country is heading in the wrong direction! And multiple polls have the pResident's overall approval ratings hovering between 54% and 52% - 21% LOWER than Bill Clinton's approval rating the day after his impeachment and falling every week! Bush's re-elect numbers show an even more grim picture for Bush.

So, yeah! I hope Americans do laugh all the way to the voting booths!

By the way, did I mention conservatives are now in charge of this country? ;) Why? Sites like this. Big mouth Liberals are GOOOOOOD business for conservatives.

No Steven, you didn't mention that. But now that you have, I must say you have an amazing grasp of the obvious. When the economy is in the toilet and the government starts to resemble George Orwell's famous novel, 1984, you know conservatives are in charge!

Did you know that almost 70% of Florida considered the Presidentail elections over and Bush as the winner after THE FIRST COUNT? Within -days- Florida knew who their President was...to bad its years later and you're still lagging behind the obvious.

C'mon, Steven! Even if that figure WAS true, it wouldn't make the conclusion true. The pResidency wasn't determined by how many people thought the first count was accurate, but rather by a Supreme Court decision that superceded the rights of the state of Florida. This is the silliest point you've made in a body of moronic points.

God I LOVE being conservative!!!

Don't call me God. Call me... Mr. Slayer.

To think I used to be a Liberal is truly insane to consider.

And your mental illness will continue to worsen until you either get help or become a total fascist.

Wow. Anyway, I hope your eyes open soon, cuz right now you're like a little pup with its eyes still closed. Good Luck. Remember, when you hear the news that the USA has defeated Iraq, that it is just another death kneel to another pathetic scum-sucking socialist nation. 20 years from now they'll even be out of the Democratic party. What do you think?

It is without question that the US will defeat Iraq if a war begins. I could burden your mind with questions about Bush's missing exit strategy, the new generation of America hating muslims this will create, and the turmoil this will put the entire Middle East in, but I don't want to exasperate your already detriorating mental condition. But Bush had better do it quick because he has less than two years before he's outta there!

U.S. Deficit Hits $97B in First 4 Months of 2003 Plus More Bad News For The Unemployed

The Bush administration has run up a deficit of $97.6 billion in the first four months of the 2003 budget year. The latest budget figures, released Monday by the Treasury Department, highlighted the White House's deteriorating fiscal situation, where record high budget deficits are forecast this year and next. For the entire 2002 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government ran up a deficit of $157.8 billion, ending four consecutive years of surpluses.

The Bush administration is projecting record budget deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion next year. Those projections factor in President Bush's proposed economic stimulus package, which consists mostly of tax cuts, but does not include outlays related to possible war with Iraq which will cost billions. more

Meanwhile, high-tech professionals reeling from the industry's sluggish job market may have to wait until mid-2004 to see an improvement, a survey of economists revealed. Economists have predicted the U.S. unemployment rate will hover between 5-6 percent this year. That level isn't expected to drop to 5 percent until 2004. more

Damn! Being an IT professional, I can recall the golden age of the 90s when employers were begging people like me to come and work for them. Now my little sister can't even find a job at McDonalds! What a difference presidential administrations make! Now, I know a president isn't supposed to have any direct influence on the economy but the general feeling people have about the country will always play a major role in the way the economy performs. How do people feel about the country? The most recent Gallup poll reveals only 39% of Americans are happy with the way things are. 58% are hating it! Compare this to the closing months of the Clinton administration when 61% on average thought the country was in great shape.

So, just a reminder... one more time... I give you THE graphic... the tale of the tape... the REST of the story...



Name Those Peace Protestors!

Can you name what political affiliation the people who made these statements belong to?

"Do you understand how ridiculous we look in the eyes of the world, making such a fuss over such a small country run by a quite ordinary dictator not unlike 100 others we do business with?"

"Should the President order the bombing of Iraq, he will be acting as a cold-blooded TERRORIST, and will be quilty of first degree MURDER! The only difference will be that Clinton, unlike most terrorists, DOESN'T HAVE THE GUTS TO DO HIS OWN KILLING!"

Answer: A Republican writer for Free American Newsmagazine in 1998 when Bill Clinton wanted to bomb weapons sites in Iraq. Those damn appeasers!

Of course, invading Iraq, overthrowing their government, and stealing their oil gets approval from the American Nazi Party and its minions whereas just bombing known weapons facilities added to their list of faux impeachable offences Clinton committed. Yep! Ranked right up there with a blow job! (Thanks to ElementaryPenguin for digging those quotes up!)

High Time For Condi, Colin To Go!

George W. should can Colin and Condi and do it right now! They have failed the president, the nation and humanity and firing the two would help restore some fragment of respect and credibility for the United States around the world.

The Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser are the worst combo we've had since Henry Kissinger effectively held both positions with alternating titles.

Let's face it, the president's never going to say he goofed. He's got to blame others.

It's easy. Just call up Dick Cheney. He'll do it. When the president sacked his economic team, the tough-talking Texan didn't have the guts to tell them to their faces. Too personal. He'd have to explain why without someone else writing the words. No TelePrompTer. Not prudent.

Bush gave Cheney a call. He carried out the executions, and arrived only half an hour late for a Republican fund-raiser. It's easy.

George W. gave the word to boot Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey after two years of continuing economic malaise the president's policies did nothing to improve.

Let's look at the record: The stock market tanks, unemployment is high, consumer confidence is down and even inflation is a worry, hitting a 13 year high.

So good-bye, O'Neill and Lindsey. George W. is not going to take the rap for that dismal record. The economy continues to sputter, but no matter, Bush has a new economic team and the nation is given the appearance of change.

However bad the economic picture is, it can't rival the international and national security mess we're now in. The policy substance must change, but why not bounce a couple of big names to get things started.

... Powell's presentation at the UN got high marks at home, where the politically correct American media have been on a dutiful propaganda blitzkrieg, but nearly everywhere else it was a monumental flop. Powell's shrill, stretched and unconvincing argument that Saddam Hussein is an agent for bin Laden won't sell, simply because it makes no sense and the evidence is beyond convoluted... more I wish I could post this whole article. It's that good!

Dumbass conservatives get slammed by Petitions Online!

This is part of what their petition said: We, the undersigned, pledge to boycott all films, recordings, and television programs that feature actors, musicians, and other “celebrities” who have maligned President Bush and his efforts to secure our safety as a free people...

Then, the service shut the petition down and posted this on the page: As a free speech forum, PetitionOnline.com cannot support the punishment of others for their legitimate free speech. This petition has been discontinued by PetitionOnline.com because it was not consistent with PetitionOnline.com requirements. This petition sought to punish specific individuals simply for expressing their own personal, legal, and non-violent opinions. Read it yourself here

Two men driving Bush into war

Behind President George W. Bush's charge to war against Iraq, there is a carefully devised mission, drawn up by people who work over the shoulders of those whom America calls 'The Principals'. Lurking in the background behind Bush, his Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are the people propelling US policy. And behind them, the masterminds of the Bush presidency as it arrived at the White House from Texas, are Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz.

In a document two years ago, [Wolfowitz] pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was 'some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor'.

This is a very SCARY article. Chilling. Frightening. There is so much here I didn't know which parts to post and which parts to comment on. So I'll just let you read it and, if you feel like it, tell me what YOU think... READ THIS NOW!

Gore Knew Better...

Has there ever been anyone you knew, or knew off, that you just didn't like but has no idea why? That must have been the case with Al Gore and Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor arrested last week and accused of being a U.S. leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 because he felt snubbed by Gore and later visited the White House after Bush was installed by the United States Supreme Court.

The University of South Florida engineering professor, an know international terrorist, boasted of his "role in electing Bush" at an Islamic fund-raising dinner in April, NBC News reports.

"I wanted to talk about the last elections, because I think I personally played a big role in electing Bush," Mr. Al-Arian is seen telling the gathering on a tape obtained by the network, which also showed a photograph of candidate Bush meeting Mr. Al-Arian and his family in 2000.

Mr. Al-Arian urged Mr. Bush to fight discrimination against Arab-Americans and said he received a better response from the Republican candidate than from Democrat Al Gore.

"Gore ignored us. Bush did not ignore us, in fact, everything we asked him for, he did," Mr. Al-Arian is seen telling the April gathering.

I'll just bet!

Mr. Al-Arian visited the White House in June 2001 as part of large Muslim group that met with top presidential adviser Karl Rove, although Mr. Al-Arian had been under FBI investigation for six years.

I Just Can't Make Stuff Up Like This!

I swear to Darwin this is a real e-mail I got yesterday. It's some dumbass reTHUGlican pretending to be an Arab. It is kind of funny and sad at the same time. I'm posting it here to show everyone how the average next door down republican addresses people they differ with. I'm offering no response because, well, it just doesn't deserve one.

Hey White Boy! Why don't you try talking to some people from the Middle East. Just because you got some education, doesn't mean you know ANYTHING. Stick to your own causes: Drug Legalization, Pornography on Prime Trime, and the Teaching of Homosexuality in schools.

You defy the tenets of Islam and make your people(Americans) look bad. Your father was a goat with no brain.

Clooney has no morals and no brain. Him, Larry Hagman(can't believe he dreamed of a my Gennie), Hoffman(self-hating Jew), etc.

Why don't you leave America?! Conme over to my neck of the woods and we'll show you why we hate your ideals.

You are an idealogical Punk. Who, without anyone feeding you information, is a useless and simple-minded. Terrorists kill people not because they are provoked, but because they HATE YOU!

Saleem AKA 'Bubba'

Hey Saleem, uh, bubba! Went across the tracks and took this picture of you. Nice teeth.




out...

... you're becoming one of the most talked about political blogs on the net... the only ones who haven't seemed to notice are other bloggers...



Prime Example of Republican Smear Machine At Work...

I'm not sure if this is suitable for my lead story today but I find it interesting no less. Matt Drudge, one of those rightwing shills who insists he is a balanced and respected journalist, ran this story yesterday about George Clooney. What he, and others like him, are counting on is that his legion of rightwing simpletons will not read the story (they don't read much, anyway) but will go around parroting the headline. Drudge has a history of things like this. For example, he recently made a big stink about Democratic Senator John Kerry getting $75. haircuts but has yet to mention George W. Bush wearing suits that cost more than most of us make in a year... but I digress...

Clooney has been outspoken about the war with Iraq. In the article, from the Washington Post, Clooney did indeed say, "We can't beat anyone anymore," but that quote was in the context of a longer, more detailed interview in which the actor explained exactly what he meant by the statement.

"You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking... These days it only matters who's in charge... right now that's us -- for a while at least. Our opponents are going to resort to car bombs and suicide attacks because they have no other way to win." Clooney said.

Lets ponder this. After World War II were we bothered with German and Japanese acts of terrorism? No. Once the war was over, it was over. However, the middle east is a different situation entirely. The many many terrorist organizations based there grew from anger and frustration at what they perceive as America's encroachment on their holy land. The more we push, the more defiant they get. Kill one group off and the next generation is even more pissed at us.

The only true way to beat them is to completely obliterate them (NOT a solution I endorse - don't want Drudge claiming Rightwing Slayer endorsed genocide!) But if we wiped every extremist muslim government off the face of the earth, the rest of the world would then be against us and we would create a new generation of even more bloodthirsty revenge seeking terrorists. What would we have won?

So Clooney is right, at least as far as our enemies in the middle east goes. Using traditional military means, we can't beat anyone anymore... unless we're prepared for our own "final solution..." Are we?

Al Gore... and the speech he might have given...

... it's just over a week since the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. History... President Gore is now addressing the nation to explain his proposed course of action...

"...My fellow Americans...A little over a dozen years ago, Afghani soldiers emerged victorious from a ten-year war with the Soviet Union. These Afghan forces, aided by the military and technical support of the United States, hastened the end of communism in the former Soviet Union, and with it, the Cold War. Serving on the front lines in the final battle of a fifty-year war with communism, the Afghanis paid a terrible price for their defense of freedom. Over a million Afghanis lost their lives fighting the USSR. The infrastructure within the country was destroyed. Sadly, since the end of the war, circumstances have done nothing but deteriorate.

In the decade since they defeated the Soviets, Afghanistan has endured an almost continuous civil war that has left the country broken and impoverished. This continuous warfare has also provided the ideal environment for political instability. Today, Afghanistan is nominally ruled by a radical, fundamentalist government, the Taliban, who has evidenced little respect for even the most basic human rights.

Unfortunately, the United States bears at least some responsibility for the sad state of affairs. During the conflict with the Soviets, the United States armed and trained some of the most radical elements in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden. Sophisticated weaponry provided by the United States remain within the region, and in the
hands of these radical elements, to this day. At the conclusion of the war, for all intents and purposes, the United States withdrew from the country. Sadly, we did not help rebuild the war-torn nation, as we had so many times in the past. Instead, we departed, leaving those radical elements to bring about the predictable ends we have witnessed over the past decade. Today, Afghanistan is in ruins, its people are on the brink of starvation, it remains locked in civil warfare, and an estimated two million impoverished Afghanis have fled the country to refugee camps in Pakistan. The instability inherent in a nation at war with itself has also provided the perfect environment for
terrorists to find refuge, including those who have attacked the United States.

While we can and must pursue the terrorists who have set up their base of operations in Afghanistan, it is not in our long-term interest that we do so in a manner that exacerbates the humanitarian crisis which the country now faces. Indeed, it is in the United States' interest that we pursue these terrorists in a manner that provides the Afghani people reason to join us, rather than resists us, in our pursuit. Ultimately, terrorism is never going to be defeated unless the people of all nations are joined with the United States in pursuing those who would commit the crimes against humanity we all witnessed last week. For that reason, our actions in Afghanistan must show the world that cooperation with the United States in this fight is a far more noble calling than is resistance.

Therefore, our policy will simultaneously address the humanitarian needs of the Afghani people while we conduct military operations directed towards bringing Osama bin Laden and his organization to justice. The United States will immediately undertake the provision of food, supplies, and humanitarian assistance for the Afghani people,
including those in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan. The Afghani people have suffered terribly, and the United States must be a part of bringing that suffering to an end. Simultaneously, the United States must conduct a manhunt for the terrorists responsible for the attacks on our nation using all necessary force to bring those parties to
justice. Ours will be a mission not only to bring those who have wronged us to justice, but to do so in a way that does not commit further injustices.

There are many who will criticize our policy as appeasing terrorists. Answering those critics, we note that the United States is the most awesome military force the world has ever known. It is well within our capability to destroy any of our adversaries with such finality that they would never rise from the ashes. Let there be no mistake; our actions are not taken in fear; the United States fears no one.

As a result of our power, the United States has a special responsibility when conducting military actions. We cannot behave as though we are terrorists, because unlike those who perpetrated crimes against humanity last week, there is no one who could stop the United States if we were to behave as our enemies have. Therefore, we cannot and will not lower ourselves to the tactics and morals of terrorists. We are the guiding light of the world, and we shall conduct ourselves as such... Thank you...and goodnight." (originally published at the Daily Brew)

How Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush Opened The Floodgates of Terrorism...

1981: Ali Mohammed, an Egyptian born Islamic fundamentalist, graduates as a captain from a Special Forces Officers School at Fort Bragg in 1981 in a program for visiting military officials from foreign countries.

1982 - 1985: CIA trains Osama bin Laden to fight against Soviets in the Afghanistan war.

1986: Ali Mohammed joins the U.S. military in 1986 and receives a security clearance for level "secret." He is assigned as a sergeant with the U.S. Army Special Operations at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

1988: The United States, after assisting Afganistan in their war with the Soviets, leaves the country impoverished, desolate, and in the hands of war hardened Islamic extemists - including Osama bin Laden.

1989: Ali Mohammed begins giving training sessions in New Jersey in guerilla warfare to Islamic militants that included among others, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abuhalima (later convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing conspiracy) and Khalid Ibrahim. Other training sessions take place in Connecticut where Islamic militants train on weekends. A FBI report, based on Connecticut State Police intelligence, summarizes the activities of the training sessions using semi-automatic weapons.

1989: According to military records, Ali Mohammed leaves the military in November 1989 and moves to Santa Clara. Law enforcement officials say he traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan where he befriended Osama Bin Laden and other top militants in the Islamic fundamentalist movements.

1990: FBI agents raid the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian born Islamic militant, following his arrest in the shooting of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City. Among the many items found in Nosair's possession were sensitive military documents from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (where the above mentioned Ali Mohammed was assigned.) The documents, some of which were classified Secret, contain the locations of U.S. military Special Operations Forces exercises and units in the Middle East, military training schedules, U.S. intelligence estimates of Soviet forces in Afghanistan, a topographical map of Fort Bragg, U.S. Central Command data and intelligence estimates of Soviet force projections in Afghanistan. Appended throughout the documents were Arabic markings and notations believed to be that of Ali Mohammed. Some documents are marked "Top Secret for Training otherwise unclassified". Other documents were marked "sensitive."

An FBI prepared inventory contains the entire listing of materials seized from Nosair's residence. Beyond the U.S. military documents, the raid on Nosair's residence produced a veritable treasure trove of terrorist documents, publications and materials. Included were actual plans for destroying skyscrapers in New York.

1990: Osama bin Laden openly criticizes the Saudi Royal Family, lobbying the Saudi ulema [religious scholars] to issue fatwas, religious rulings,
against non-Muslims (Americans) being based in the country in preparation for the Persian Gulf War.

Americans were duped before; it could be happening again

Are you being duped? Ask yourself that question before condemning those who oppose bombing, invading and occupying Iraq. It wouldn't be the first time your own government, including your president, has lied to justify war. It happens in every other generation.

This nation fought a war against Spain over a century ago because many in the media parroted the government line that Spaniards blew up the Battleship Maine in Cuba. Turns out that most likely was a mistake at best, a big fat lie at worst.

During World War I, Germans were depicted as brutal barbarians who reveled in nailing babies to fences and gouging out their eyes, and World War I was billed as the war to end all wars. Instead, it led directly to World War II, the rise of communism and the Cold War in the bloodiest century the world has ever known.

Many of today's hawks are too young to remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the big fat lie that plunged us into Vietnam in the 1960s. Look it up. Then there was the Iran-Contra affair, a web of lies that helped shape the dismal dilemma we face now. Remember Iran-Contra? That was the covert operation of the Reagan-Bush administration in the 1980s to sell missiles to a radical Iranian government in exchange for its help in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon.

Later, our government lied to make its case for the first Gulf War.

Our government claimed in 1990 to have a photograph showing 265,000 Iraqi soldiers and 1,500 tanks massed on the Saudi border ready to overrun that country's oilfields. That claim compelled the Saudis to let us use their country as a staging ground for the Gulf War. A prize-winning writer for the St. Petersburg Times went to the source of the photograph and exposed it as one more lie. The first Bush bunch also lied to the Kurds and other enemies of Saddam Hussein, promising we would liberate them if they rose up to oppose that hated tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

Instead, Kurds were slaughtered by Iraqi helicopters as U.S. forces withdrew. We mostly protected the Kurds from further Iraqi vengeance, but the lies keep coming, to the Kurds and to us. more | Print

Don't Put The Blame On Clinton

Every president inherits a world full of problems. From the first President Bush, Clinton inherited a brewing genocide in the Balkans, growing tension in the Middle East, a standoff in Northern Ireland, unrest in Haiti, an unstable situation in Russia, a healthy and dangerous Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and an emerging terrorist threat. It's not former president Bush's fault that these crises carried over, and Clinton certainly didn't spend the next two years blaming his predecessor for them. America and the world were better prepared and able to meet each of these challenges at the end of the Clinton administration than at the beginning. more



Editor: Bush Cited Report That Doesn't Exist. In other words, he lied to the American people. But it wasn't about a blowjob... So THAT'S OK!

There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist.

Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law.

That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month.

"I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. "It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case."

The Wallstreet Journal Snipes At The Prospect of REAL Liberal Talk Radio

Fist let me quote the absolute dumbass who wrote this article.

"Listening to liberals do talk radio can be a weird, out-of-culture experience, like seeing Pat Boone going through his heavy-metal phase or a helmet-clad Michael Dukakis cruising by in a tank," the Wall Street Journal's Taste page says in an editorial.

"Even liberals admit that it's an awkward dance. Anyone remember Mario Cuomo or Jim Hightower, failed hosts who went into radio bearing the mantle of the left's answer to Rush Limbaugh?"

Yo, folks, let me remind you of something - Cuomo is a politician, not a radio host. Hightower is a liberal to be sure but he certainly doesn't speak to the democratic voter base.

If you want real liberal talk radio, tune in Randi Rhodes. Rhodes is the republican party's worst nightmare. Very intelligent. Extremely articulate. Quick witted. Most importantly, Rhodes is a woman. And it drives the rightwingers nuts that a woman can smack them down like that! Ms. Rhodes hosts the top-rated show on her Clear Channel owned station in Palm Beach County, Florida, garnering better ratings than Rush Limbaugh, whose program airs before hers each day.

I mentioned that her station is owned by Clear Channel Communications for a reason. Clear Channel syndicates the Rush Limbaugh show across the country. Yet they refuse to syndicate Randi Rhodes. Why? Because the mighty (mighty smart, that is) Rush Limbaugh knows that if America gets to sample Ms. Rhode's wares, him and his kind are history and so he has threatened to leave Clear Channel if they ever syndicate Ms. Rhodes.

Rhodes has confirmed to her listeners, however, that she will play a part in the new liberal talk radio network that is, according to rumors, being backed by Democratic supporters of Bill Clinton and Al Gore and was jump-started at a recent meeting in Washington with Democrats who included Senators Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle.

Of course, people will still snipe at this. Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Fox TV's 'Hannity & Colmes' and who just got his own radio show, noted on air that a network that gives the impression that its hosts will be mouthpieces for the Democratic National Committee hasn't done them any favors.

Speaking of mouthpieces for a particular political party, Mr. Colmes, what news channel do you work for? Everyone knows you're just a house liberal, a token (and weak) progressive put in place to give Sean Hannity a whipping boy on a news channel that is the biggest mouthpiece for a political party the world has ever seen. FOX News is like Soviet-owned broadcasts!

Think you'll ever see "Hannity and Begala," "Hannity and Carville," or "Hannity and Rhodes?" I'll answer for you. No.

Listen to Randi Rhodes live online from 3 - 7 PM here

TREASON! ...White House allowed al Qaeda to escape!

While Republicans carelessly throw around the word "treason" when describing anti-war protestors, they must really be praying that news like this doesn't surface about their own...

From NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS. Interview with Seymour Hersh.

Ecerpt:

SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe more. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.

And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.

JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?

SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we'll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.

JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don't have any knowledge of that operation.

SY HERSH: That's what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, "Gee, really?" He said, "News to me." Which is not a denial, it's sort of interesting. You know,

JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?

SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.

JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?

SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.

JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.

SY HERSH: Absolutely.

more

(thanks to BLM for pointing this story out!)

Embarrassment For Bush: Alleged Terrorist Met With Bush Adviser

Let's see. The Bush family connection to the bin Laden's is already well documented. Now we see that the Bush junta was cozying up to the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization, too!

A former university professor indicted this week as a terrorist leader attended a 2001 group meeting in the White House complex with President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, administration officials said yesterday. Sami Al-Arian, a former computer engineering professor at the University of South Florida, had been under investigation by the FBI for at least six years at the time of the June 2001 briefing for a Muslim organization. Numerous news accounts also had said federal agents suspected Al-Arian of links to terrorism.

Al-Arian was indicted Thursday on charges that he conspired to aid suicide bombings in Israel and the Palestinian territories and has served for years as a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. Seven others in the United States and abroad were also indicted on a variety of charges.

Al-Arian and his family also were photographed with Bush during a March 2000 campaign stop near Al-Arian's suburban Tampa home.

And Bush sent a letter of apology to the suspect's wife after the Secret Service ejected their son -- who was then a congressional intern -- from the White House complex during a separate June 2001 meeting of Muslims interested in the president's faith-based initiative. more

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lobbied Clinton in '98 to start Iraq war and topple Saddam

Even as our last legitimately elected President, Bill Clinton, was taking heat from Republicans for sending cruise missiles into Iraq to take out weapons facilities, current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq.

This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush administration's desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?

Clinton rebuffed the advice from the future Bush administration officials saying he was focusing his attention on dismantling al Qaeda cells. more

Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, was on the board of technology giant ABB when it supplied North Korea with two nuclear power plants

Weapons experts say waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called “dirty bombs”. The hypocrisy of the Bush administration knows no limits. The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million contract with Pyongyang.

The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea’s east coast. Rumsfeld was a member of ABB’s board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post. Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld “was at nearly all the board meetings” during his decade-long involvement with the company.

The defense secretary’s role at ABB during the late 1990s has become a bone of contention in Washington. The Bush junta has repeatedly criticized the former Clinton administration for being too soft on North Korea although the current administration has all but ignored North Korea and has instead concentrated on Iraq.

Could the Bush administration be in bed with North Korea even further than Rumsfeld's nuclear involvement?

Ashcroft, Justice Deptment exaggerated their success convicting would-be terrorists

The Washington Post is reporting the Bush adminstration has been exaggerating their success in the war on terror. Federal prosecutors exaggerated their success convicting would-be terrorists last year by wrongly classifying three of four cases as "international terrorism," a government watchdog says.

Overall, almost half of 288 convictions deemed "terrorism-related" were found by investigators to have been wrongly classified as such for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the General Accounting Office found.

The Department of Justice "does not have sufficient management oversight and internal controls in place to ensure the accuracy and reliability of terrorism-related conviction statistics included in its annual performance reports," reported Congress' nonpartisan watchdog agency.

In total, the prosecutors wrongly classified at least 132 of 288 convictions - 46 percent-as terrorism-related for fiscal 2002, the GAO said. All but five of the misclassified convictions were reclassified as anti-terrorism-related, and five were reassigned as other types of crimes.

Sean "The Punk" Hannity Gets His Ass Handed To Him... Twice! (Once by his own producer!)

I usually watch prime time fluff on weeknights unless I know a news channel is going to have something interesting on. So I have no idea why I was watching FOX News Thursday night when Punk Hannity and Spineless Liberal Combs had Bobby Kennedy Jr. on to talk about SUVs. But I was glad I tuned in.

Kennedy's contention was that unless you specifically needed an SUV's power and space for work, you should strive to own vehicles that take less fuel and that we should all be lobbying our government to provide alternate fuel sources to make us less reliable on the Middle East. Kennedy said owning a gas guzzling SUV as a luxury and not a necessity is wasteful.

Sounds logical, right? Of course, when you're dealing with a conservative, logic flies out the window. Hannity desperately tried to draw a comparison to people who drive SUVs with those who use private jets! Huh? Right! Hannity says private jets use more fuel than SUVs so If someone uses a private jet, they're no better than SUV drivers.
He then tried to set Kennedy up as a hypocrite by revealing Kennedy has used private jets in the past! Then Hannity, with his typical smirk, declared victory in the debate but NEVER addressed the main point of the SUV debate - and the reason Kennedy came on the show - that they are wasteful and our government should develop alternate fuel sources. Like so many meek liberals, Kennedy let Hannity off the hook! However, those watching with one iota of intelligence knows Hannity avoided the real issue like the plague and instead made a pretty meritless comparison.

In other words, Hannity looked like a fool to anyone other than the howler monkeys who were watching!

Just by coincidence, I was listening to Hannity's radio program last night and people were calling in congratulating Hannity for besting a Kennedy and blah blah blah. Hannity was basking in it. Then he made a fatal mistake. He said he had highlights from the interview in which Kennedy called SUV drivers un-American which, of course, never happened. Hannity hammered the "un-American" label for about 30 minutes then he played the clip. No mention, or even an implication, of Kennedy calling SUV drivers un-American.

Then the producer played another clip at Hannity's request. Still no mention or implication of the "un-American" accusation. However, the second clip had Kennedy saying the government should provide more fuel efficient technology and Hannity dancing around that issue. Hannity asked for a third clip to be played. The producer played the second clip again! There was Kennedy, saying we needed alternate fuel sources to lessen our dependency on Middle East oil. There was Hannity, avoiding the subject...dancing around it like John Travolta!

Hannity never admitted that he made up the charge that Kennedy called SUV drivers un-American. But what do you expect from howler monkey FOX hosts?

CBS warns: No "Anti-War" Statements at Grammys!

Top CBS executives are deeply concerned that Sunday night's Grammy Awards may become a giant anti-war political rally. The Grammys are set to air live from New York City and will feature performances by Eminem, Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen, Coldplay, and others. There is a rumor that one star is allegedly planning a dramatic anti-war gesture.

One CBS executive has threatened to cut the microphones if anyone dares to differ with the current line of war propaganda coming out of the White House.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Terrorists be on notice, we will fight back against you." Said by Ronald Reagan while his administration was training Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets.

"... there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive...' If he thinks he can hide from the United States and our allies he will be sorely mistaken." Said By George W. Bush before he gave up looking for the murderer of 3000 Americans who was trained by his daddy and his daddy's boss.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pennsylvania Joins New York in Ousting Bush in 2004

Quinnipiac University Poll: In the ’04 Presidential matchup, an unnamed Democratic candidate edges Bush 46 – 43 percent among Pennsylvania voters.



out...

United Nations Weapons Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'

U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases. CBS News reports the U.N. has been taking a precise inventory of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missile arsenal, determining how many there are and where they are.

Discovering that the al-Samoud 2 has been flying too far in tests has been one of the inspectors' major successes. But the missile has only been exceeding its 93-mile limit by about 15 miles and that, apparently, is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. The al-Samoud 2 is not the 800-mile-plus range missile that Secretary of State Colin Powell insists Iraq is developing.

In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word (perhaps "shit?") The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

Hmm! What SOME people will do for oil... that is... black gold... Texas tea...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Terrorists be on notice, we will fight back against you." Said by Ronald Reagan while his administration was training Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets.

"... there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive...' If he thinks he can hide from the United States and our allies he will be sorely mistaken." Said By George W. Bush before he gave up looking for the murderer of 3000 Americans who was trained by his daddy and his daddy's boss.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brits Move To Dump Blair. Will George W. Bush Meet The Same Fate?

After a day which saw the largest political demonstration ever in London, with two million marchers protesting plans for a war in Iraq, leading circles in the ruling Labour Party in Britian moved for British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be dumped as soon as that can be arranged.

With all signs pointing to the Bush Administration being fully committed to an Iraq war, in the weeks immediately ahead, the dumping of Blair, the Administration's main ally for the war drive, might well be the one qualitative event that would knock the war off course. more

J.R. Ewing: Bush is a sad but dangerous figure with little education

THIS is so damn funny! Actor Larry Hagman, former star of the television series "Dallas", slammed President George W. Bush as a sad but dangerous figure with little education.

"If George Bush attacks Iraq, tens of thousands of people will die without reason," Hagman told Thursday's edition of the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

The actor, who played the notorious Texas oil baron JR Ewing in the Dallas series, said Bush was a "sad figure: not too well educated, who doesn't get out of America much. He's leading the country towards facism."

He said Bush and JR Ewing both came from the Texas oil industry but that the president was not smart enough to be like JR.

When asked whether Bush would appreciate his accusation, Hagman replied: "It's all the same to me, he wouldn't understand the word facism anyway."

CBC Radio: This is a war about covering up the deal made with the devil, and oil - always oil

If you don't have time to read the rest of my blog today, make time to read this. If you read only one thing today, make it this!

Jim Trautman:

As another war in Iraq gets closer, U.S. administrations have become masterful at covering up their past and present dealings with Saddam Hussein. Historically, when things go badly the U.S. rewrites history to portray itself as the victim.

In the 12-thousand page declaration that was provided to the U.N. by Iraq in December, there was a list of the 24-American companies and 30 of their subsidiaries that provided material to Iraq.

But, in a deal with Hans Blix this information was never released. In fact, the Bush administration received the only copy and carefully edited out the incriminating evidence before presenting it to the other Security Council members. The list was leaked by a European publication and it makes for some very interesting reading. Besides naming the companies it is coded to show what each provided to the regime.

Companies on the list include: Dupont, Honeywell, Bechtel, Unisys, American Type Culture Collection, and the Los Almos and Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Facilities.

The U.S. companies provided rocket engines, nuclear material, biological and chemical material for weapons of mass destruction. This included cultures to manufacture biological weapons.

Little mentioned is the 1994 U.S. Senate report that focused on the U.S. material and technology that assisted the Iraqi government to make mustard gas, VX nerve gas, anthrax and bubonic plague.

Looking at that list one realizes that the cast that provided the deadly material is the same cast preparing for war today. Donald Rumsfeld opened the door to Iraq - U.S. relations in his meeting with Saddam in 1983. Rumsfeld was Reagan's envoy to the Middle East. He ok'd the transfer of satellite images to Iraq of where the Iranian troop deployments were concentrated during the Iran - Iraq war.

The 54 companies did the selling all with the authority of the Reagan and Bush administrations. They saw Iraq as a bulwark against militant Muslim extremism. The U.S. provided Saddam with deadly outlawed "cluster bombs" through a phony cover company in Chile. Of course at the same time the U.S. was supporting bin Laden in Afghanistan.

And for anyone that believes this commerce stopped, Halliburton Oil was doing over $100 million in business with Saddam in 2000. Who was the CEO of Halliburton - why Vice President Dick Cheney.

This is a war about covering up the deal made with the devil, and oil - always oil.

For CBC Commentary, I am Jim Trautman in Guelph, Ontario.





Republicans: Be Patriotic And Say NO To All Things French!

That would include pasteurization, antibiotics, and the rabies vaccine, each created by Louis Pasteur of France.


Reader feels Iraq war is justified; Kosovo war was "wag the dog."

Why do you hate our current leader for what he hasn't done yet but at the same time you have much respect and love for our former leader, Clinton, who took it upon himself to make war on Kosovo without ever consulting congress or the U.N.? - Carol Walz

Why stop with Kosovo and Iraq? Reagan and Bush's invasion of Panama and Grenada and their bombings of Libya were also done without consent of Congress and the United Nations.

On December 29, 1989, Dan Rather reported on the CBS News network that, “The United Nations considered the U.S. invasion of Panama as a flagrant violation of international law."

If we want to judge presidents by the legality of their wars, we don't have many to choose from. If Clinton had a million illegal wars and George W. Bush only had one, it would not make that one war right!

For the record, I admire President Clinton in spite of the mistakes he made, including quite possibly our involvement in Kosovo. Overall, he left this country in much better shape than the way he found it in 1993. On the other hand, GW Bush has sunk us back to the levels of despair his daddy left us in before Bill Clinton took office. I was only cautiously in favor of Clinton's actions in Kosovo because I saw no ulterior motives. I agree NATO should have gotten U.N. approval but Clinton did get congressional approval in a sense.

On the other hand, I do not hate our illegally installed leader, just his policies. I hate his policy concerning what he wants to do, and I hate his failed policies that have this country on the brink of economic disaster while he bows down to the rich. Now, we can discuss Bush's failed domestic policies up to this point if you'd like but I believe your question dealt more with what Bush wants to do in Iraq compared to what Bill Clinton did in Kosovo.

What Bush intends to do in Iraq is a completely different animal than our involvement in Kosovo. Under false pretenses and made up evidence, Bush wants to invade a country, remove it's leader, install American General Tommy Franks (who is under criminal investigation) as the new leader, occupy the country for years, and pay for it in part with profits from Iraq's oil.

He says a stable Iraq is important to the peace and security of the Middle East. The only problem with this is Iraq IS stable and has been contained for 12 years. In fact, none of Iraq's neighbors feel threatened. Why do we? The truth is, we don't. As Charles Peña, Senior Defense Policy Fellow of the Cato Institute, said: "The Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world." Oil, Carol, oil.

Don't you find it odd that 3 of the top 4 officials in the Bush administration formerly worked in the oil industry? Or that Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, illegally sold oil refinery equipment to Iraq in the late 90s?

If Bush was really concerned with peace and stability in the Middle East, he would have done more for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the only true powder keg in the Middle East.

At the same time Bush has neglected to develop an exit strategy for Iraq, and mysteriously left out how much this war will cost this country in a budget that already will run the largest deficits in our history.

As for Kosovo, it is true Congress did not formally authorize the use of military force. However, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing air attacks and just over a week later, the House of Representatives voted bipartisan support on March 11, 1999 for President Clinton's Kosovo policy. So, in effect, both houses of congress approved of military force.
I
t is also true the NATO alliance (yes, it was NATO - not just the United States) that took part in the Kosovo war never actually received U.N. approval for their bombing runs. But that doesn't mean Bush should be allowed to make the same mistake based on the weak "Clinton did it so I can, too" argument.

But beyond the legal wranglings of the Kosovo conflict and the imminent Iraqi war, certain ethical and moral questions must be asked. Why did we go into Kosovo and why does the Bush administration want to go into Iraq?

As far as we can see, there was no ulterior motive for our involvement in Kosovo other than to keep the peace. Some would say we invaded to move NATO forces one step further into Eastern Europe. If that is so, then that is a NATO operation - one in which the United States would only benefit from indirectly. Others say we needed stability there to build oil pipelines. Possible, but I haven't heard that deal announced yet. There's also a story that the region has vast deposits of uranium and we needed to control that to prevent rogue nations from developing nukes. But to be sure, Milosevic was involved in some of the most brutal ethnic cleansing the world has ever seen and he proved himself to be a destabilizing force in the region.

Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, has been quiet for 12 years and has done no more harm recently than he did while he was our ally in the 80s and while contained in the 90s.

Yes, he is a vicious bastard and if he were sitting next to me I would gladly put a bullet in his head. But what separates the situation in Iraq from Kosovo is the smell of petroleum... seeping under the noses and into the consciencness of republican politicians and their wealthy oil company contributors for the past 12 years. If Bush and the republicans would publicly swear they would not profit directly or indirectly from Iraqi oil, and sign documents stating as such whereas violation would mean jail time, I just might cautiously support THIS war. But you can bet they would never agree to such.

Even though I think war should be the last resort, as I said, I cautiously supported the Kosovo conflict. I saw no other objective than to stop the genocide going on there. A war with Iraq has so many other dark objectives, some of which will line the coffers of the republican party in general and the Bush family in particular.

With all due respect was Kosovos ethnic cleansing or genecide far worse or more disgusting than what Sadam has done and is still doing with his people today?

With all due respect, Carol, genocide is far worse.

He has rape camps for punishment if you were to speak incorrectly or say something you should not about him. In fact all they have to do is say that you did something with no proof and you will be tortured or killed. The women are raped not because she did anything but because that is punishment for maybe what the husband did or a family member possibly with no proof, no trial just punishment! I think that is right up there with Kosovo.

Yes, Carol, Saddam is evil. But even his evil doesn't rise to the level of genocide. Imagine someone wanting you dead for what you are - not what you've said, but what you are. There is also a level of inconsistancy in saying we're going into Iraq to liberate their people. I agree they are treated horribly, but their are regimes all over the world where dictators treat citizent brutally - some more brutally than what Hussein is doing. Why not go after the worst first? The answer? These countries are not on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world.

As far as your comments that Clinton didn't have a hidden agenda, I would beg to differ with you. Just as you have your opinion on Bush, I do have mine on Clinton. That march into Kosovo was nothing more than a way to take the focus off of him and the heat he was feeling from his Indiscresions within the White House with a well know intern named Monica Lewinsky.

That's rightwing spin and I'll tell you why. There was no heat on Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky period because Clinton was enjoying the highest approval ratings of his presidency during that time. I'm perfectly aware that rightwingers were attempting to derail his presidency but to imply NATO undertook a military operation to stop a war criminal from committing genocide just so Clinton could try to make a minority of Americans forget the trumped up charges against him is silly and a slap in the face to the Kosovo citizens.

As far as your opinion that Bush's agenda is other than Scrupulous and it is all about oil, I would like for you to take at a look at the following info and the link. If it was really about oil then Daddy Bush would have tried it then.

First, two can play the "wag the dog" game. Starting a war to distract the public's attention from the loss of 2 million jobs and a squandered surplus is certainly more compelling than your belief that Clinton needed to draw attention away from a blowjob.

As far as daddy Bush trying to take oil from Iraq then, oil deals with Kuwait were more than enough then to placate him because he owed the country a favor. In the early 60s, Bush I received a lucrative contract to drill the first deep-water oil wells off the shores of Kuwait. Kuwait produces 10% of the world's oil supply - good enough to make them the second largest oil producer on the planet. More importantly, liberating Kuwait from Iraq saved Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves, of which the Bush family has major stakes in, from an imminent threat from Baghdad. The Saudi Royal family reminded Bush of this as he contemplated the first Gulf War.

Besides, he could not have tried to take Iraq's oil fields then. The United Nation's Security Council only allowed for the expulsion of the Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the reestablishment of Kuwaiti independence. The Arab members of the coalition were also increasingly unhappy at the devastation inflicted on Iraq's infrastructure and civilian population and refused to support a full scale Iraq invasion.

Oh I forgot, we wouldn't of gotten any oil from them or Kuwait because he torched everything and this time he already has what he calls his "Scorched Earth Plan" that he will implement if he is attempted to be removed by the U.S. or by the U.N.

No, Carol. Saddam Hussein torched oil fields in Kuwait but did not torch his own. Vice President Dick Cheney made a killing as CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil services firm. The company made a small fortune on contracts to clean up Kuwait’s oil industry after the Gulf War--a war that Cheney pushed for as Bush Sr.’s defense secretary.

So he will not punish us for that but he will condemn his own people to their deaths and leave his country in shambles. Does that sound like someone who is not a threat to his neighbors...

Carol, he's only threatened to do this if we invade. Saddam becomes dangerous to his neighbors only if we invade.

...or the carefully planned plot by some who is not insane but who will do whatever it takes to make sure he has a few pages in a history book and is known as a martar at the sake of the death of his country.

Carol, are you a psychic? Do you have access to information that the rest of us don't? What hat did you pull that "history book" reference from?

I also think Turkey, Israel and probably Kuwait is still a little jittery about 1991, they would disagree with you on your statement that none of his neighbors fear him.

Carol, you asserting your opinions and how you personally would feel in this situation as fact. They are not. Israel could clean Iraq's clock in a war. They can take of themselves. In 1998, Turkey forged an alliance with Israel. A U.S. invasion of Iraq would destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely aligned with the United States. Once again, only if we invade does the situation become volatile.

Ok, I have to summerize the rest of Carol's e-mail. She gave me DoE stats on where the United States imports its crude oil from. I fail to see what relevance these statistics have on the issue of Bush's oil war.

A Tale Of Two Presidents: Bush Approval Plummets To 52%; Bill Clinton Favored To Be Next Secretary General Of The United Nations!

pResident Bush's popularity has been rocked during the last two months by an unpopular budget plan, which will see record deficits and favor only the rich, and an even more unpopular prospect of war. A modest 52% to 46% majority still gives him positive ratings while 48% don't approve of his job performance. This puts his approval 16 points lower than Bill Clinton's the day he left office - and a staggering 21% lower than Clinton't the day after the attempted Republican coup of 1998 (for those confused, that would be his meritless impeachment.) more

On the subject of our last legitimately elected president to hold office, William Jefferson Clinton, he has apparently hit the campaign trail again. According to a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist, a "major international move" is afoot to "help install the ex-CEO of the most powerful nation as the CEO of the most powerful world body – the United Nations."

In their "Dateline D.C." column, which is written by a Washington-based British journalist and political observer, they named no names but cited reports that Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt. The Tribune-Review also reports Russia and China have both made it known they would not object.

Apparently, the world has fond memories of a time when the world's only superpower was run by an intelligent and qualified individual. more

Oliver North designed concentration camps for Americans; Plan could have provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"; Bush has revived plans to quell public dissent of his presidency. THIS IS REAL!

From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal.

They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.

A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps".

Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.

When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with broad powers in the event of a "crisis" such as "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad". They were never used.

The plan, which was modeled after a plan that Reagan and Edwin Meese had developed in California to deal with black activists, anti-war protesters and members of the student Free Speech Movement, involved the cooperation of a number of agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service which took steps to establish a network of detention centers capable of holding thousands of undocumented aliens. more and more

Lobbing a few missiles does not a war make!

Dittoheads, freepers, and other members of the "hijacked by the christian right" republican party, knock it off! My gut hurts because I've been laughing so damn hard! We're facing an unpopular war in Iraq and all you guys can do to deflect the criticism is whine about Bill Clinton lobbing a few cruise missiles at targets U.N. weapons inspectors told the president about after they left Iraq. That in itself proves inspections work but lets examine it a step further.

The inspectors were out of Iraq and gave us reliable information on what our targets were. We destroyed them without an invasion and heavy causalties. In fact, there were NO American deaths. You guys screamed "wag the dog."

Now, in 2002, our unelected fraud wants to risk heavy US casualties in a full scale invasion based on outdated, plagiarized, and shoddy evidence that is not corroborated by the current group of arms inspectors. At the same time, the Bush/Cheney junta is dodging charges of financial wrongdoing - certainly a clear case of "wag the dog" based on the republican definition of the term.

And even if Clinton's actions against Iraq were wrong, it doesn't justify Bush's lastest plans. But that is the MO of the Bush administration. If they can't blameClinton for something, they want to use his actions as a justification for something. In this case, "we can attack Iraq because Clinton did."

But I've veered from my point so I'll wrap it up quick. Bill Clinton bombed Iraqi weapons targets based on reliable intelligence, didn't lose a single American life in the process, and did not profit personally from it. George Bush want a full military invasion, risking countless American lives, based on suspect intelligence, and he stands to personally profit from the Iraqi oil fields.

Is there really any comparison between these two President's Iraq operations?

Anti-Bush T-Shirt Banned at Mich. School

I went to a predominately black highschool. In fact, only 9% of the school's student population was white. Yet, it wasn't uncommon for the school's few white kids to wear clothing with confederate images. The faculty and administration didn't care! Now, I hear School officials in Dearborn Michigan recently ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off a T-shirt emblazoned with the words ``International Terrorist'' and a picture of President Bush or go home, saying they worried it would inflame passions at the Arab-American students in the school.

The student, Bretton Barber, chose to go home. He said he wore the shirt Monday to express his anti-war position and for a class assignment in which he wrote a compare-contrast essay on Bush and Iraq President Saddam Hussein.

Schools spokesman Dave Mustonen said students have the right to freedom of expression, but educators are sensitive to tensions caused by the conflict with Iraq.

Mr. Mustonen, why are you lying? The shirt offended you personally so you forced the kid to comply to your rightwing idealogy. What if the shirt had had an American flag on it? Or a pro-Bush message?

"Bush has already killed over 1,000 people in Afghanistan -- that's terrorism in itself," said Barber, noting he wore the shirt for a presentation he made that morning in English class. The assignment was to write a "compare and contrast" essay -- and he chose to compare Bush with Saddam Hussein. more Buy the t-shirt here

"Would you expect the Jewish community to participate in a campaign to raise the swastika?"

If Georgia holds a referendum on the state flag, many blacks won't participate, civil rights leaders warned yesterday.

A group including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Concerned Black Clergy and labor unions vowed to boycott a statewide vote on returning the Confederate battle cross to prominence on the state flag, the Associated Press reports.

Black leaders called it insulting to even ask blacks whether they wanted to see a return to the Georgia flag of 1956-2001, which is dominated by the rebel emblem.

"Would you expect the Jewish community to participate in a campaign to raise the swastika?" said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue has promised a nonbinding vote on the flag, with the legislature making the final decision.

Wisely, Turkey demands pledges in writing

Hoping to avoid being screwed by the Bush administration, Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday his country would not open its bases to U.S. troops unless Washington guarantees economic aid and Turkey's role in any Iraq war in writing. more

"I've seen how Bush has lied to his own people...I want to avoid that." Erdogan might have said if Rightwing Slayer has asked him.

Dan Quayle: Iraq situation 'is more complex' than in 1991 ... No, Dan, you're just a tab bit smarter now... more

More "hit and run" e-mail from a dumbass conservative

Rightwing Slayer - you're an idiot

WOW! What a command of facts and figures. What an astute sense of logic! You, my friend, are one prolific son of a bitch!

But I've just got to ask: WHY do you consider me an idiot? If you have information that I don't, information that proves something I've written isn't true, surely you can smack me around with it!

Or maybe you think I'm an idiot for exposing what a dumbass unelected fraud you boy Bush is! You didn't even have the balls to sign your name and give your real e-mail address in your e-mail!

You're a real mental giant! C'mon! put this liberal in his place!

Sean "The Punk" Hannity rails against Germany; Fails to connect the dots!

I was listening to Sean Hannity whine about the story that Germany provided Iraq mobile chemical labs in the late 80s. Don't know why he was surprised. After all, Iraq was an ally to the West in the 80s and after the United States sold Iraq the ingredients to make chemical weapons they, of course, needed labs to make them in. DUH! Sure, Germany selling them to Iraq is bad for us now, but why didn't Hannity point out that without the chemicals we sold Iraq, the labs Germany sold them would have been useless!

out...