Kristol Clear at Time

The market doesn't work -- not when it comes to conservative commentators.

Before the Iraq war, rightwing (and middle-of-the-road) pundits claimed Saddam Hussein was a dire WMD threat, that he was in cahoots with al Qaeda, that the war was necessary. The neoconservative cheerleaders for war also argued that an invasion of Iraq would bring democracy to that nation and throughout the region. They were wrong. But they have paid no price for their errors. They did not have to serve in Iraq. None, as far as I can tell, have had sons or daughters harmed or killed in the fighting there. They did not have to bear higher taxes, because George W. Bush has charged the costs of this military enterprise to the national credit card. Though they miscalled the number-one issue of the post-9/11 period, they did not lose their influential perches in the commentariat. Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt, Danielle Pletka and others (including non-neocon Thomas Friedman) who blew it on Iraq still regularly appear on op-ed pages and television news shows, pitching their latest notions about Iraq, Iran or other matters.

Foremost among this band is William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle. Kristol, a Fox News regular, has not seen his standing as a go-to conservative pundit suffered. Moreover, he has been rewarded with a plum posting. Time magazine's new managing editor, Richard Stengel, has invited Kristol to become what Stengel calls a "star" columnist for the magazine.

Both Kristol and Stengel are likable fellows. I usually enjoy debating Kristol on television or radio. He's no hater, and he's no autopilot partisan. Stengel is a thoughtful and cerebral person who once was a senior adviser to cerebral Senator Bill Bradley, a Democrat. So there's nothing personal when I ask, why in the hell does Stengel believe that what America needs now is more Bill Kristol? (Slate media cop Jack Shafer criticized Stengel's pick of Kristol by noting that "Kristol isn't much of a deviation from Charles Krauthammer, an occasional Time 'Essay' writer." Friendship declared: Shafer is a pal of mine.)

It's too late to affect Stengel's decision, but let's take this occasion to review Kristol's record on Iraq, courtesy of a rather cursory Nexis search. It holds no surprises.

On September 11, 2002, as the Bush administration began its sales campaign for the coming war, Kristol suggested that Saddam Hussein could do more harm to the United States than al Qaeda had: "we cannot afford to let Saddam Hussein inflict a worse 9/11 on us in the future."

On September 15, 2002, he claimed that inspection and containment could not work with Saddam: "No one believes the inspections can work." Actually, UN inspectors believed they could work. So, too, did about half of congressional Democrats. They were right.

On September 18, 2002, Kristol opined that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East."

On September 19, 2002, he once again pooh-poohed inspections: "We should not fool ourselves by believing that inspections could make any difference at all." During a debate with me on Fox News Channel, after I noted that the goal of inspections was to prevent Saddam from reaching "the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons, Kristol exclaimed, "He's past that finish line. He's past the finish line."

On November 21, 2002, he maintained, "we can remove Saddam because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy."

On February 2, 2003, he claimed that Secretary of State Colin Powell at an upcoming UN speech would "show that there are loaded guns throughout Iraq" regarding weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, everything in Powell's speech was wrong. Kristol was uncritically echoing misleading information handed him by friends and allies within the Bush administration.

On February 20, 2003, he summed up the argument for war against Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world....France and Germany don't have the courage to face up to the situation. That's too bad. Most of Europe is with us. And I think we will be respected around the world for helping the people of Iraq to be liberated."

On March 1, 2003, Kristol dismissed concerns that sectarian conflict might arise following a US invasion of Iraq: "We talk here about Shiites and Sunnis as if they've never lived together. Most Arab countries have Shiites and Sunnis, and a lot of them live perfectly well together." He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." And he maintained that the war would be a bargain at $100 to $200 billion. The running tab is now nearing half a trillion dollars.

On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

Such vindication never came. Kristol was mistaken about the justification for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and the consequences of the war. That's a lot for a pundit to miss. In his columns and statements about Iraq, Kristol displayed little judgment or expertise. He was not informing the public; he was whipping it. He turned his wishes into pronouncements and helped move the country to a mismanaged and misguided war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not journalism.

In an effectively functioning market of opinion-trading, Kristol's views would be relegated to the bargain basement. And he ought to be doing penance, not penning columns for Time. But -- fortunate for him -- the world of punditry is a rather imperfect marketplace.

*****

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (186)

1. Mr Corn,

   THIS is why almost NONE of the "Grand Vision of the Revolution of 2006" will come about.

   It's still "Inside the Beltway" baseball. And it's not just on the Right.....I saw Bob "0-8" Shrum on "Hardball" last week. Here's a guy who has lost EVERY election he's been involved with (notably 2004 and Kerry) and is STILL brought in as a "top Democratic strategist" on the talk shows.

   It's another reason why impeachment (which YOU have pointed out as well) is a political loser for the Democrats. Kristol and Fox and others ARE the "Mainstream Media" now, and will immediately call it "revenge motivated" or "driven by the Fringe in the liberal Blogosphere" and poll ratings for the Congresssional Dems will plumment if they try it.

   Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 07:13am

2. Take the time required to go to google video and watch the three-part speech of David Icke entitled "Secrets of the Matrix."

   Take the time. Watch and learn. There are NO coincidences. What is the name of the person who typed in the graphics? What is the name of his boss who ordered this be done?

   Those in the CIA-controlled media must be held to account and revealed when they take it upon themselves to BECOME THE STORY.

   THE STORY is the Manipulation of the American People by the CIA-CONTROLLED MEDIA.

   Call them out by name and demand truthful answers for the intentional manipulation of your mind.

   http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/2007/2007-story14.htm

   Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US

   Let's make "Swift Luck Greens" famous! What do you think it will take for Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann to get these images featured on their nightly shows and demand an explanation of Michael Chertoff? I want to see national TV news crews there at this location with cameras in hand. We paid for them - Cheney's KBR built them - let's see them on TV! Aren't they proud?

   http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

   Latitude: 41.92 Longitude: -106.521944

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program

   Wikipedia: Civilian Inmate Labor Program

   Prison camps: The regulation also sets forth policy for the creation of prison camps on Army installations. These would be used to keep inmates of the labor programs resident on the installations.

   http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

   Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'

   http://tinyurl.com/y48vxo

   http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/1607403/posts

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:06am

3. What are we to make of this?

   Sunday Herald - 02 November 2003

   Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ...

   Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA?

   Neil Mackay investigates...

   THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

   Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis - and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

   Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact.

   It has always been a long-accepted agreement among allies - such as Britain and America or America and Israel - that neither country will jail a "friendly spy" nor shame the allied country for espionage. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Boston's Political Research Associates and an expert in intelligence, says: "It's a backdoor agreement between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn't do too much harm, he goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always visa violation."

   What we are left with, then, is fact sullied by innuendo. Certainly, it seems, Israel was spying within the borders of the United States and it is equally certain that the targets were Islamic extremists probably linked to September 11. But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit? That's a conspiracy theory too far, perhaps. But the unpleasant feeling that, in this age of spin and secrets, we do not know the full and unadulterated truth won't go away. Maybe we can guess, but it's for the history books to discover and decide. PNAC is about Zionists.

   The "New Peral Harbor" was their creation...the "pretext"

   Learn.

   http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6819

   http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html

   http://ww1.sundayherald.com/print37707

   http://judicial-inc.biz/uss_liberty.htm

   http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

   http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

   http://www.savethemales.ca/

   http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_a_hoax.htm http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&contras sID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

   http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

   http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm

   http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ti meline&startpos=200&theme=israel

   http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040328/news_mz1e29libert.html

   http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041014-121528-8981r.htm The PNAC plan, which is in the process of being implemented to the letter, called for a "New Pearl Harbor" as the essential trigger for its implementation.

   The Signatories to the PNAC plan include most of those who worked within the power positions to direct the activities surrounding 9/11 and the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

   GW's youngest brother, Marvin Bush, was the director of a casualty insurance company with coverage of the World Trade Center. That the coverage was stopped sometime before 9-11. Also Marvin Bush was a director of a firm that was involved with the security of the World Trade Center F.B.I. until he resigned in August 2001. One of the world's top experts on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, he grew to believe that "all the answers" regarding what they needed to destroy Al Qaeda lay in Saudi Arabia. However, starting in January 2001, Bush blocked all efforts by Mr. O'Neill to investigate Saudi ties to bin Laden. In the summer of 2001 O'Neill declared that the main obstacles to his investigation were U.S. oil interests. In late August, a frustrated O'Neill quit the FBI and took a position as head of security for the World Trade Center.

   O'Neill became the head of Security at the World Trade Center, and about his first day of work was 9-11. He was outside one of the buildings when he phoned a son and a friend to reassure them he was fine.

   O'Neill is reported to have called FBI headquarters, and then re-entered one of the towers to help others. The official story is that O'Neill was inside when the buildings collapsed.

   How convenient for the Bush administration that Mr. O'Neill would not only die in the attack, but also that he would make such a call. Not only was the Bush administration's most dangerous critic forever silenced, but he also provided the administration the perfect story to explain his death.

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:17am

4. Peterson's Blackstone has connections with Kissinger Associates...

   An angle worth further investigation...

   The Bush and Bin Laden families were linked together through a Texas businessman named James Bath. He invested $50,000 in George II's failed energy company Arbusto as part of its start-up. Because he was an agent for Salem bin Laden, Osama's older half brother, and represented numerous other wealthy Saudis, there was speculation that this money was Saudi money. This investment occurred in 1979. Around that same time, Osama went to the Khyber Pass in Afghanistan and joined up with the mujaheddin and the CIA in their war to oust the Soviet Union from that part of the world. Bath was a friend of George I from their days in the 1960s as members of the Texas Air National Guard. By 1976, Bath was acting as an agent for bin Laden's business interests in Texas, and the $50,000 investment in Arbusto was made in 1979. The bin Ladens cemented their business ties with the Bushes in 1995, when they made a $2million dollar investment in the Carlyle Group, which specializes in investing in defense contractors. Frank Carlucci, Bush I's former Secretary of Defense, is the chair of Carlyle. James Baker, one of the attorneys who argued Bush II's case in the Supreme Court in 2000, and George I are on Carlyle's board. All three have been sent in recent days on diplomatic missions to the Saudi royal family. Cheney & Lay:

   Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project's costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

   Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, "These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public."

   When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction--or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president.

   The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.

   The Bush Administration's struggle to keep secret the workings of Cheney's Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the President's tenure.

   http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

   In the spring of 2001 the severity of the California energy emergency had inspired demands for government action, and Enron had a problem.

   Enron CEO Kenneth Lay knew he needed high-level help. So he arranged to meet with a man who had headed a corporation with extensive business ties to Enron and who had been a prime recipient of Enron's political largesse. Vice President Dick Cheney cleared his calendar for an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding what aides described as "energy policy matters" and "the energy crisis in California." At the meeting Lay handed Cheney a memo that read in part: "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps...."

   The day after he met with Lay, Cheney gave a rare phone interview to the Los Angeles Times that had one recurrent theme: Price caps were out of the question. Dismissing the strategy as "short-term political relief for the politicians," Cheney bluntly declared, "I don't see that as a possibility."

   Indeed, so close was the Cheney-Enron relationship that it is entirely reasonable to ask whether ethical and legal lines were crossed. That possibility offers the most realistic explanation for Cheney's refusal to disclose details of his Enron contacts to Congress.

   Cheney's refusal to cooperate with investigators--which presidential historian Stanley Kutler refers to as part of a broad "assault on the legal and Constitutional order" by the Bush Administration--forms the most powerful argument for the appointment of a special counsel.

   http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

   The BBC was told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that senior American officials were warning them as early as mid-July, 2001 that military action for mid-October was being planned for Afghanistan.

   Say what?

   In 1996, the Department of Energy was issuing reports on the desirability of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998, Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that this pipeline was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean. Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.

   Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.

   Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?

   Why wouldn't it have been?

   You can't hit the "GO" button without a pretext.

   9/11 was the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East - all by design.

   So the implementation of such a plan would require BY NECESSITY the implementation of a FALSE FLAG ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES of such magnitude that it would rival the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor thereby invoking the Pavlovian response which resulted.

   If you were looking for anyone to pull off the perfect False Flag Operation on your behalf, there is only one place you would look...Israel's Mossad.

   The so-called Energy Crisis in California was entirely fabricated of whole cloth by none other than Ken Lay's Enron - in concert with Poppie Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Alan Greenspan.

   The only thing more outrageous than these theories is the belief that the timing of 9/11 was a coincidence. It would be a stretch (even for a COINCIDENCE THEORIST), to contend that all of these matters are not directly related.

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:19am

5. By Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A04

   The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

   Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 12/ 22/ AR2005122202119.html

   And then...a few weeks later...

   W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 1 A group of military scientists is feverishly examining the microscopic spores of anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle for clues to a mystery that could have profound implications for the United States and its ongoing war on terror: Who made it? (Still unsolved, yet evidence says it came from a military lab: seeAnthrax Mystery Solved

   "Lab technicians noticed a late-night intruder was tampering with their equipment. A 1992 inquiry found someone was conducting unauthorized research involving anthrax during the evening hours. An audit of the lab showed 27 sets of specimens--including anthrax spores--were unaccounted for or missing. One former commander at the facility said he did not believe any of the missing specimens were ever found.

   Dr. Zack is said to be Jewish, and for some this makes him the leading anthrax suspect, particularly among those in Internet discussion groups. They see the harassment of Dr. Assaad, the late night research on anthrax, and the accusatory letter all pointing in Dr. Zack's direction."

   http://www.anthraxattacks.net/the-anthrax-mystery-solved.htm http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html

   September 10, 2001 - Ex. CIA-director, former President, and President Bush's Dad, George H.W. Bush, meets with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers at a Carlyle business conference in Washington D.C 9/11 - Defense contractor, The Carlyle Group, is hosting a business conference in D.C. in which featured honored guest is one of Osama Bin Laden's brother

   9/11 - Workers at Israeli company get text warnings about attacks 2 hours prior

   9/11 - Five Raytheon employees are on three of the four hijacked planes

   9/11 - Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) -- the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- along with Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and some other members of the House Intelligence Committee are in a meeting at the Capital building with the director of Pakistani intelligence (ISI), Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, who authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to alleged lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta

   9/11 - FAA memo says Flight 11 passenger was shot who happened to be a multi-millionaire elite Israeli military commando who understands Arabic and who happened to be sitting directly in front of one of the alleged hijackers

   9/11 (8:44 am) - Donald Rumsfeld is in his office at the Pentagon talking about missile defense and the risk of terrorism and predicts there will be a terrorist attack two minutes before the first plane crashes into the WTC

   9/11 (9:00 am) - The CIA began an exercise to simulate a plane crashing into one of it's buildings

   9/11 - Ann Tatlock, a CEO at the South WTC Tower, is on her way to an early morning charity event at the U.S. Strategic Command Center at Offutt AFB in Nebraska -- where Bush later flew to for "safety" -- hosted by billionaire Warren Buffett and is escorted by military officers into an officer's lounge with a TV and watches the 2nd hijacked plane crash right into her offices

   9/11 - A New Jersey homemaker witnesses a group of young men on top of a white van celebrating while they were filming themselves with the burning WTC in the background in which they were later arrested and identified as Israeli citizens -- with some later found to be Israeli spies -- and they were found with large amounts of cash, a box cutter, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the blasts, and that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives in their van

   http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

   http://web.archive.org/web/20011108025936/http:/www.bergen.com/news/2bom bvan200109125.htm

   http://web.archive.org/web/20021003225412/http:/abcnews.go.com/sections/ 2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:20am

6. 9/11 - When Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister of Israel, was asked what the 9/11 attacks meant for relations between the United States and Israel, he replied, "It's very good."

   9/11 - Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, said he decided that the smartest thing to do to the WTC 7 was to "pull it" when a NYFD commander told him that he wasn't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire in the building and said after they made the decision to "pull" the WTC 7, they "watched the building collapse". The term "pull" was used to describe the demolition of the WTC 6 days later

   9/11 - White House staff are given the powerful anthrax antibiotic Cipro, a full month before the first cases of anthrax were reported 9/11 - CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre reporting live from the Pentagon says that there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the building

   9/11 - Pentagon is hit right in the middle of only retrofitted section, important budget information located in the damaged area, attack came near the end of fiscal year, fatalities included civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts

   September 12, 2001 - Ben Fountain, who worked in the 47th floor of the south tower, says weeks before the attacks they had an "unusual" amount of evacuations from the WTC and says he thinks "they had an inkling something was going on.

   September 12, 2001 - Mohammed Atta allegedly calls his father

   September 12, 2001 - Before it was even clear who was behind the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism"

   September 16, 2001 - Osama Bin Laden releases a press statement denying he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks

   September 16, 2001 - President Bush says Osama Bin Laden is the "prime suspect

   September 20, 2001 - FBI Director Robert Mueller admits that some of the alleged 19 hijackers identities are in doubt as at least seven of them appear to be alive

   October 5, 2001 - Bob Stevens becomes the first person to die from the anthrax attacks who was a photo editor at American Media, Inc., the parent company who owns the National Enquirer which published a photo of Bush's daughter Jenna shown drunk with a cigarette in her hand falling on top of another girl

   October 11, 2001 - Two men from a moving company whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained by federal immigration authorities after being found with detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago. They were later determined to be Israeli Mossad Agents

   October 23, 2001 - Air Force General Richard Myers said the military has never thought of the scenario of terrorists hijacking planes and using them as missiles despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (despite Arctic Becon's saying such a plan was made by our own military in the Seventies using airliners and boxcutters) October 26, 2001 - Only a month and a half after 9/11, the 342 page USA PATRIOT ACT is signed into law in which civil liberty groups say it violates the Constitution and fear it will endanger civil liberties

   http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=46 1&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

   Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

   And this official DEA report:

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:21am

7. According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.

   The men all underwent at least two polygraph tests each, the lawyer added. He said one of the Israelis took the test seven times, a very unusual total according to several polygraph experts interviewed by the Forward. All failed their tests.

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

   http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

   http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

   What did Ken Lay know and when did he know it?

   While Lay is on the stand and under oath, wouldn't it be great fun to ask him all about his meetings with George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney prior to 9/11?

   Wouldn't it be great to ask him if the faux California Energy Crisis which his company manufactured just prior to the 2000 elections was actually a scheme cooked up by he and Poppie Bush to compel Americans to install some oil experts in the White House? But what was to be Lay's reward? After all, he was GW's largest contributor and best friend of Poppie Bush. Poppie never planned on Enron going bust, and that's when things started to fall apart.

   Wouldn't if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?

   Wouldn't it be enlightening to hear that Lay knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen as the pretext for the war plan which he clearly had knowledge of prior to 9/11?

   Why would you sit around countless energy planning meetings dividing up the oil fields of Iraq in advance of 9/11 unless there were a plan in place to make it possible?

   Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.

   Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.

   Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?

   Why wouldn't it have been?

   CREATE THE PROBLEM - INSTILL FEAR - PROVIDE THE SOLUTION.

   CREATE THE PROBLEM - INSTILL FEAR - PROVIDE THE SOLUTION.

   CREATE THE PROBLEM - INSTILL FEAR - PROVIDE THE SOLUTION.

   Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:23am

8. http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-chertoff.htm

   FYI: Taking "head shots" is a term of the Mossad. It is their tactic for dealing with suicide bombers wearing vests. Mossad has taught this same technique to police forces across the United States.

   After Andersen's conviction, the government's Enron investigation gains momentum. After Justice Department criminal division chief Michael Chertoff obtained an indictment against Andersen in March, the prosecutor became the target of public demonstrations by Andersen employees. As the firm's employees confronted the reality that the indictment would drive Andersen out of business, they and others demanded to know why Chertoff wasn't going after his principle target, Enron.

   Chertoff's obstruction-of-justice indictment of Andersen quickly broke the firm.

   http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-andersen.htm

   http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

   Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government's 9.11 investigation.

   "At the FBI's insistence, the White House had already forced ICE to give up its Operation Greenquest program investigating terrorism financing -- and forced Ridge to sign a memo pledging to keep his department away from similar investigations."

   http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

   Chertoff allowed scores of suspected Israeli terrorists and spies to quietly return to Israel. In several cases, Israeli suspects working for phoney moving companies, such as Urban Moving Systems from Weehawken, N.J., were caught driving moving vans which tested positive for explosives. On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, which was found to be a Mossad front company, fled to Israel after FBI agents requested a second interview.

   One group of 5 Israelis was seen on the roof of Urban Moving Systems videotaping and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. These Israeli agents were returned to Israel on visa violations.

   ABS 20/20 Investigation:

   http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

   http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

   FOX News 4-Part Investigative Series:

   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm I mentioned Alito was reportedly soft on the Moving Van buisnesses and Mafia connected leaders, the same companies that were found to be operating as Israeli front buisnesses, who employed the 5 dancing Israelis, on 911.

   These companies were protected by Alito.Why?

   Please read how Michael Ledeen's helping prepare the US for War with Iran at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332303.shtml and all its comments

   CIA Resurrects Dead Bin Laden.WHY?

   http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332303.shtml

   SO CHERTOFF TOOK DOWN ANDERSEN - TO THE GREAT BENEFIT OF ITS LARGEST COMPETITOR, BOOZ-ALLEN.

   DOV ZAKHEIM, THE COMPTROLLER FOR THE PENTAGON, STOLE $7 TRILLION FROM THE DOD AND SENT IT TO ISRAEL. HE ALSO PROVIDED THE TECHNOLOGY THROUGH HIS COMPANY, SYSPLAN, TO FLY ALL FOUR OF THE "HIJACKED" AIRCRAFT TO THEIR TARGETS REMOTELY.

   HIS REWARD?

   A CUSHY NEW JOB AT NONE OTHER THAN BOOZ-ALLEN.

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:28am

9. Possible McCain-Lieberman Alliance

   Introducing McCain to a packed ball room of pro-Israel business executives, defense contractors, and Washington insiders, was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, fresh from being re-elected as an independent after losing the Democratic Party primary in Connecticut.

   Lieberman's glowing tribute to his Republican colleague did not go unnoticed. "McCain-Lieberman? There's something to that," JINSA board member Morris J. Amitay told the crowd.

   http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/6/111221.shtml?s=lh

   Double Standards on Foreign Owners: Amdocs vs. DP World by Lila Rajiva www.dissidentvoice.org March 1, 2006

   In December 2001, Fox TV broadcast a four-part investigation on Israeli espionage by Carl Cameron, which the Israeli embassy in Washington, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), and AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) immediately denied and attacked. (1)

   http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Rajiva01.htm

   JINSA rewards American Militarism:

   http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/136 6/documentid/3340/history/3,2359,2166,1366,3340

   http://nowarforisrael.com/

   http://www.mediamonitors.net/johnhenshaw1.html

   JINSA presents an annual Distinguished Service Award, named in honor of the late-Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson to U.S. government leaders.

   Last year the recipient was General Peter Pace. They have taken down the JINSA site - but the article is cached here:

   http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:x6ArOtbgi40J:www.jinsa.org/articles/ view.html%3Fdocumentid%3D3340+pace+jinsa+honor&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

   This years recipient is none other the AIPAC Butt Boy and USS Liberty Coverup Specialist, JOHN McCain.

   http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm

   Tuesday December 5th, JINSA is proud to honor Senator John McCain with the 24th annual "Scoop Jackson Distinguished Service Award...sponsored by Rolls Royce.

   DO THE MATH FOLKS!

   http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html

   McCain / Lieberman is your future.

   DO THE MATH

   .

   Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:28am

10. What are we to do when the entire process of elections becomes subverted, controlled by an outside force that takes US tax payer dollars, offshores them, then launders them right back into the political process thereby ensuring that only their hand-picked candidates become government officials?

    When all that cash is utilized to purchase media time to promote AIPAC's hand-picked candidates - the executives of the media companies can clearly see who they need to support in order to enrich themselves. The news departments are instructed to perpetuate the game for profit.

    Our tax dollars have been used to destroy Democracy. The electoral process is completely broken as a result of the money in politics. It is ironc that there is a new cry for publicly funded campaigns. They already are publicly funded...it's just that the entity responsible for distributing the public funding is AIPAC.

    While the vast majority of Americans are crying out for lobbying reform, every Jewish organization is actively campaigning against it - to protect AIPAC's grip on the system.

    Remember this?

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml

    In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

    - Ron Suskind "Without a Doubt"

    All that cash leads to that kind of arrogance. Frankly, I'd rather fix the problem now than study it later.

    DEPORT AIPAC and win back your Democracy.

    It really is that simple

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html

    Hedrick Smith noted in his book Power Game that AIPAC had become a "superlobby ... [It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan's] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia; and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate."

    "You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

    "Aipac has a lot of influence on foreign policy," says JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish newspaper The Forward. "They work hard to ensure that America endorses pretty much Israel's view of the world and the Middle East."

    "A great asset to our country". Condoleezza Rice describing AIPAC in March, 2003.

    "Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics." -- Prominent conservative lawyer and political commentator, Benjamin Ginsberg.

    "I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. "You see this napkin?" he said. "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker).

    "AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member." -- Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    "A lobby is a night flower, it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." -- AIPAC research director Steve Rosen, 2001.

    "The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

    "Congress is 'terrorized' by AIPAC... In practice, the lobby groups function as an informal extension of the Israeli government." -- "They Dare to Speak Out," -- Congressman (1961-1982) Paul Findley.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:29am

11. A high-risk game of nuclear chicken

    http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/a-high%11risk-game-of-nucle ar-chicken-200601313615/

    Kenneth Timmerman, told Israeli radio in mid-January that he expected an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran "within the next 60 days", ie just after Israeli elections or just before.

    Timmerman is close to Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen.

    The question is whether ordinary Israelis are war weary, whether with Palestine or with Iran, and seek a compromise solution. Polls seem to indicate so. However, the very strong showing of Hamas in the January 25 Palestine elections could change the Israeli mood. The day after their vote success, Hamas leader Mahmud al-Zahhar claimed that his movement would not change its covenant calling for the destruction of Israel, reported the Israeli online news portal Ynet.

    Last week, a new element appeared in the chemistry of the long-standing Israeli Likud-US Congress influence nexus. Larry A Franklin, a former Pentagon Iran analyst and close friend of leading Pentagon neo-conservatives, was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in jail for sharing classified Pentagon information with pro-Israel lobbyists through an influential Washington-based lobby organization, AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

    AIPAC has been at the heart of ties between the Israeli right-wing Likud and members of the US Congress for years. It is regarded as so powerful that it is able to decide which Congressmen are elected or re-elected. Previously it had been considered "untouchable". That is no longer true it seems.

    Franklin pleaded guilty last October to sharing the information with AIPAC lobbyists and Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon. Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who were fired from AIPAC in 2004 in the affair, are facing charges of disclosing confidential information to Israel, apparently about Iran. The sentencing is causing major shock waves throughout leading US Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. The conviction has hit a vital lobbying tool of AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups, namely, expenses-paid trips for US Congressmen to Israel. Hundreds of politicians are taken to Israel every year by non-profit affiliates of groups such as AIPAC and the American Jewish Committee - trips Jewish leaders say are a vital tool in pro-Israel lobbying.

    The Bush administration had tried to bury the Franklin case, unsuccessfully. It could only delay the trial until after the November 2004 US elections. The Franklin scandal as well as the Abramoff lobbying affair have both hit severe blows to the suspicious money network between Likud and the White House, potentially fatally weakening the Israeli hawk faction of Netanyahu.

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:31am

12. .

    JAMES PETRAS' NEW BOOK - THE POWER OF ISRAEL IN THE UNITED STATES It's also able to get prominent Washington officials and the dominant corporate-run and funded media to label all criticism of Israel anti-semitic and freely uses this ruse whenever it serves its purpose. Israel is allowed to get away with its intelligence operations here as well including its covert penetration of military bases, the FBI, IRS, INS, EPA and many other government agencies. In addition, it's believed its agents knew in advance about the 9/11 attack but withheld the information knowing it would serve its interests to let it happen. There's also considerable evidence high US officials either knew about it themselves or were complicit in carrying it out because they also knew it would allow them the kind of reckless free reign at home and abroad they never could have gotten any other way. This is a story that won't go away nor should it, and one day we may finally learn all the parts of it we can only speculate about now.

    http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=13901

    Oct. 25, 2006 - While reportedly under investigation for her ties to an influential pro-Israel lobbying organization, California Rep. Jane Harman last month hosted a private dinner for the group that was attended by two top Bush administration officials--Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

    The Sept. 13 dinner took place at the home of Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and was attended by over 120 top financial backers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion in which Harman played the host, questioning Negroponte and Chertoff about Mideast developments, international terrorism and homeland-security issues, according to an AIPAC official.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/

    THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS HIJACKED. DEPORT AIPAC

    .

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:32am

13. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2522/

    Features > March 8, 2006 General Condemnation By George Kenney

    Retired Lieutenant General William Odom was the director of the National Security Agency between 1985 and 1988. Currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University, Odom has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

    QUESTION: You've described Iraq as the greatest strategic mistake that the United States has ever made. Could you elaborate on that?

    A shorthand way is to reflect on what happened to the Hapsburg Empire. There is an analogy here with bin Laden and 9/11 and his taking refuge in Afghanistan. I think invading Afghanistan made some sense because we were going after the culprit. But when we went into Iraq, we were invading a country that didn't have anything to do with 9/11. This has set in motion some of the same kind of consequences that the Hapsburgs set in motion by their ultimatum to Serbia, which started World War I and led to their own destruction.

    Rather than losing the United States as an empire, what we're doing is losing Europe. In other words, we're essentially destroying NATO. And NATO has provided a supra-national-political-military substitute for government in Europe, which has allowed the longest period of peace and prosperity in the history of Europe. Whether that can continue without NATO or without a strong U.S.-European connection through formal institutions is most doubtful.

    QUESTION: So we would essentially be destroying this international system.

    Absolutely, but what we are destroying is not a territorial empire, it is an ideological empire. The ideology's not democracy; it's liberalism with a capital L. Liberal countries are countries that have constitutions. They brought the state under control. They limit the power of the state, they make it the honest referee. Those countries have always become democratic in their decision-making procedures, but countries that become democratic without first having a solid constitutional agreement almost never turn out to be liberal.

    And unlike previous empires, countries have generally fought to get in this one, not to get out.

    Remember that in the fall of 2001, the U.S. had over 90 countries participating in five sub-coalitions in the anti-terrorism coalition. We never have had so much international support in our history. And we had NATO, without any urging, invoking Article 5 of the treaty saying that bin Laden's attack on the United States was an attack on them.

    U.S. international support began to erode only when the president announced the "Axis of Evil" in January 2002. And I remember being confused as to what the Europeans were talking about until I heard a couple of senior diplomats--deputy chiefs of mission of major NATO countries--saying, "We signed up to fight al-Qaeda, and when we heard the president's speech, he was asking us to declare war on Iraq, Iran, North Korea."

    They didn't sign up for that, and they weren't even asked. And then the president marches on, acting as if Europeans were fools because they didn't sign up for the war, as if they were out of place to question whether they should even be consulted.

    QUESTION: A lot of people have talked about the reasons why we made the mistake of going into Vietnam. It's harder to get a handle on why we made the mistake in Iraq. How do we find out what the reasons were?

    Only thing we could do is ask Mr. Bush. It seems to me that it's pretty hard to imagine us going into Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC [American Israeli Public Affairs Committee] and the neocons, who think they know what's good for Israel more than Israel knows. The invisible elephant in the room on this issue is the Israeli factor. People don't like to talk about it. Now that we're in there, we're getting to realize that the war is creating far more dangers for Israeli security than it's provided improvements for Israeli security.

    I think you're going to see a Shiite Islamic regime in at least a large part of Iraq and it's going to cooperate with Iran, and Iran with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that will create all kinds of trouble for Israel.

    It's a lot of hubris, a lot of intellectual arrogance, on the part of neocons who think they know what's better for everybody else.

    So put that all aside. The most important thing to remember is to go back and use the Vietnam example. Our failure after 1964, after the Gulf of Tonkin, when we decided to increase the troop levels, was not to ask the question, again and again, what was our strategic purpose in Vietnam and did it make any sense.

    QUESTION: I remember that James Graham, who was the CIA's Asia guy, also argued against the war until Kissinger finally forced him out. So, the agency wasn't on board for that war either.

    To blame the intelligence community is a big mistake. Intelligence communities are not free. They're hired agents for a particular administration, which picks their leaders. Take this analogy from the corporate world: Have you ever heard of a board of directors firing a vice president for marketing? No, corporate boards fire the CEO because it's the CEO's job to hire the vice president for marketing. So if the Congress is so upset with the CIA's performance on the war, they should impeach the president.

    QUESTION: Is there much chance in your view that the Congress is going to weigh in on Iraq or on the possibility of further confrontations with Iran anytime soon?

    The Iraq issue will come back because it's just going to get worse. The administration may find some cover to cut and run. I would not be surprised to see in a few months, when the Shiites are pretty well ensconced in the government, they may just say it's time for you fellas to leave.

    It would be great in the sense of not staying longer, but then we would be facing the strategic ramifications for Iraq and the region, which we are going to have to face sooner or later anyways. And that is that we have actually put in the driver's seat a country whom we have defined arbitrarily as one of our worst enemies, Iran.

    There is a knee-jerk tendency to say, "Well, if we left, it would be a mess. Therefore, we can't leave." That requires blinding oneself to the fact--the reality--that our presence is creating the mess, that we don't keep a mess from happening by staying, and that we don't have the alternative of not creating a mess. When we crossed the border of Iraq with the invasion, all these untoward outcomes were inexorably going to happen.

    From the beginning I was unambiguously against this war. I said that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is not in our interest, it is in the interest of al-Qaeda and the interest of Iran.

    QUESTION: Have people come back to you to say, "General Odom, you were right?"

    It's not anything particularly brilliant on my part. We have all been made to put up with this preposterous illusion. It's like somebody telling you, "There's no cloud in the sky today." And when you look up and can't see the sun, you say, "You know, I don't see the sun." It doesn't take a lot of insight to point out that there's no sunshine up there.

    QUESTION: It seems like there are a lot of dishonest people making policy so we're left to figure out how to deal with that. People see these statements coming out of Washington and think, "Well, my gosh, how do I make sense of that?"

    The sad thing to me in that regard is that the Democrats gave the public virtually no real choice in the last election. So I'm not terribly surprised at the way it came out, but I don't think it really reflects where the public stands on the war in Iraq. I've given up on the Democrats. I think the best hope right now, for the next election, is to find a Republican who will say that the war is a mistake strategically and then get out.

    QUESTION: There was an article in Der Spiegel saying American emissaries had been trying to convince the Germans and Turks and so forth to prepare for some kind of assault on Iran. Do you see any realistic chance that we are now going to start confronting Iran?

    I would have, in the past, said it's almost too ridiculous to take seriously. But given this administration's record, I'm reluctant to rule it out.

    You can look at this and make a very strong case that by naming the "Axis of Evil" and invading Iraq, we have actually strengthened North Korea and strengthened Iran. They'll both end up with nuclear weapons, whereas they might not have if we hadn't done this. If you had a good reason to invade Iraq, and I don't think we did, you shouldn't have lumped Iraq together with Iran as enemies until after you had achieved what you wanted to achieve in Iraq. Surely you don't want two enemies out there. Why not have Iraq's other enemy, Iran, on your side?

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:33am

14. I said from the outset of this phony war that our troops were being sent into an indefensible position where the ultimate result was destined to be chaos. They were sent there to be trapped there. Their equipment is wearing out - as has their welcome.

    This is quite literally a no win situation - by design.

    I was told by someone in a position to know that a quagmire had always been planned for, and that the reason there was no exit strategy was that there was never ANY intention to exit...EVER.

    Permanent Bases means just that...permanent.

    Consider this:

    Vice President Cheney spoke before a huge audience of Jewish Americans at the annual AIPAC Convention.

    While his approval rating among the general population is a mere 18%, fully 100% of those in attendance greeted Cheney with a rousing 3-plus minute standing ovation.

    Why would 100% of those attending an AIPAC Conference be so appreciative of this Vice President? What has he done for them that he has not done for the vast majority of Americans who disapprove of his performance?

    Anybody?

    Was the AIPAC audience so appreciative of Cheney for this?

    "A day or two after Pincus's article was published in the Post, a meeting took place in Cheney's office to coordinate a response to the charges. In attendance were Libby, Cheney, and several other senior aides to the vice president as well as officials from the State Department, and the National Security Council.

    It was then that Cheney decided the only way to counter Wilson's criticism was by having Libby leak portions of the NIE to a select group of reporters whose previous work in their respective publications had advanced the White House's political agenda.

    For an administration that despises leaks, the decision by Cheney to declassify highly sensitive portions of the NIE and have his most trusted aide leak it to reporters in order to attack the former ambassador's credibility shows how personal the Wilson issue had become for the vice president.

    Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the timing of an executive order signed by President Bush supposedly granting Cheney the authority to declassify such national security intelligence fits nicely into the time frame when he and his senior aides spearheaded a campaign to discredit Wilson.

    The executive order was signed on March 23, 2003, four days after the start of the Iraq war, and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar."

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030606Z.shtml

    After all - the Iraq war is a war fought based solely on lies (90% of US soldiers in Iraq have been brainwashed to believe that they are there to avenge the attacks of 9/11) and fought solely to the benefit of Israel.

    Perhaps this is why Vice President Cheney is a champion of those within the American Jewish Community who choose to support the activities of AIPAC (a foreign spy organization) at the expense of the rest of us.

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:34am

15. July 25, 2006 Madison's Warning and the Israel Lobby

    http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=9400

    Mr. Madison never imagined that the two houses of the United States Congress and the federal executive branch could conceivably combine with what today is called a "private interest group" – namely AIPAC – to be exactly the sort of faction that would threaten both "the rights of other citizens" and "the permanent interests of the community." And yet today, that is precisely the spectacle we behold as the Bush administration and both houses of Congress – Republicans and Democrats – continue a bipartisan, three-decade-old policy of supporting Israel without qualm or stint, and without the least concern about what such support means for the welfare and security of American citizens and their families.

    Finally, this two-branch, AIPAC-funded, mid-term-election-minded faction agreed on the weekend to very publicly dispatch large consignments of U.S.-made precision weapons to fill the recently depleted stocks of the Israeli military. All of these actions were, of course, played out against a backdrop of editorial screeches, claiming "Israel is bravely and nobly fighting America's and/or the West's war," from the likes of such noted U.S.-interests-be-damned voices as Ann Coulter, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, William Kristol and the Weekly Standard's crew of certifiable zanies, and the reliably hysterical FrontPageMag.com.

    The real question of moment is not the red-herring of Israel's right to defend itself, but rather what possible U.S. national interest is at stake that requires America to put its security at risk on Israel's behalf.

    So, how to explain the extraordinary power of America's tiny but dominant pro-Israel faction? In the context of the enduring alliance between the executive branch, the Congress, AIPAC, and their media acolytes, Alexander Hamilton's warning in Federalist No. 6 that in the pursuit of private and selfish interests men are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious" is a good place to start.

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:35am

16. David Corn asked:

    "Why does the newsmagazine's new chief believe America needs to hear more from a war-pushing commentator who was wrong about Iraq?"

    I like the sentiment, but a better question to have asked would have been:

    "Why does the newsmagazine's new chief not believe America needs to hear more from some peace-pushing commentators who were right about Iraq?"

    We want to make clear our commitment to diversity, not come across as would-be censors who would like to lay off journalists, however ideologically lame-brained they may be.

    I also don't like Corn's claim that the "market doesn't work." We have to ask what task we have assigned to the market here. If the task is to sell newspapers, well, the market does that, though it has become harder to sell newspapers now that there's the Internet. I believe the task of commercial media nowadays is primarily to entertain, not to inform. In this respect, the marked works wonderfully. I do not believe the market "works" when it comes to education, however, for a couple of reasons.

    The first is that active engagement on the part of the pupil is required. As Wendell Berry said, "The teachers are everywhere. What is wanted is a learner." And learning requires work. It requires research, comparison of multiple sources, etcetera. In any event, it involves more than asking God to whisper the answer into your ear.

    The second reason (why the market doesn't "work" when it comes to education) is that I do not believe the heads of the world's multinational corporations really want informed consumers. I suspect that during the last thirty years or so, they have discovered that uninformed people buy more cheap equipment that either breaks down quickly or quickly becomes obsolete, more empty calories of salty and sugary fat, and generally more stuff that is not good for them, but that is habit-forming, easy to produce, and as often as possible necessary to replace. I suspect, therefore, that the commercial media have given up trying to inform the public and have focused on entertaining the public. The result is that we U.S. Americans are the best entertained and most poorly informed people on the planet.

    Not because of censorship, but because real facts come in a trickle, in the midst of a torrent of truthy factoids from the likes of William Kristol. Often the most successful factoids are the most flattering (do you notice?) -- the ones that suggest that we are the greatest people on the planet with a mission to save it from Evil. The American People cannot get enough self-flattering factoids. Therefore, the corporate media deliver them. The market works!

    But if we want better informed citizens, I suggest that we support public media. It would be nice if some U.S. media channels carried a mandatory fee, as the BBC and several (yes, several) German public radio senders do. Again, I'm not trying to "shut up" any commercial medium. I only want to give them some competition to raise the bar when it comes to informing the public. Until utopia comes, let's support our public media -- the ones who have to beg, as they don't have to in Britain and Germany. And support your favorite alternative media corporations, like the Nation! (And visit the websites of the publications that you hate.)

    Posted by JakobFabian at 01/02/2007 @ 08:37am

17. http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_st

    Unprecedented revelations on AIPAC by former Senator

    "I just finished reading your critique of NoamChomsky's positions in an email sent to me by TonySaidy.

    I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab=Israeli conflict.

    But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the US want them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.

    I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear, fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done.

    I can also tell you that very few members of Congress, at least when I served there, have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby.

    What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel.

    I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate would voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise.

    In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.

    Thus, I see no desire on the part of members of Congress to further any US imperial dreams by using Israel as their pitbull. ...."

    "Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations.

    Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well.

    Any journalists ,editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning...."

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:37am

18. http://qumsiyeh.org/humanrightblog/

    The interview below with Alan Stein is from the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. Stein leads a group called PRIMER-CT

    http://www.primerct.org

    which boasts of generating letters pressuring media. They engage in attempts to silence free speech not only in the media but also at universities and colleges in CT as evident from their 2004 report posted on their website (e.g. their letters to CCSU, they recently removed from their site some "analysis" action calls which now they send to selected and verified "subscribers"). There are dozens (perhaps more) of such groups like MEMRI, CAMERA, HONESTREPORTING, and PRIMER which have the money and staff to spread what they call Hasbara (Hebrew for PR) to distort reality and intimidate and pressure people. The Palestine Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda.org) which Stein attacks has a very different mission and goals.

    Congressman Paul Findley's book "The Dare to Speak Out" explains many of these tactics of those who tried to suppress anyone who starts to tell the truth about US disastrous foreign policy in support of Israeli aparthied, occupation, and ethnic cleansing. He also argues that the huge resources they put in this are needed because they are trying to suppress the truth; suppressing the truth needs far more resources and money.

    For detailed studies of the fabrications of groups like CAMERA and MEMRI, visit:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.ht ml This is must reading about MEMRI and its "credibility" http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1869.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article445.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7.shtml http://www.abunimah.org/features/020815memri.html http://electronicintifada.net/features/mediaonmedia/20010821camera.html http://www.abunimah.org/features/000403camera.html http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/13401/index.php

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:38am

19. HELP!!!!!!!!

    I'm SURROUNDED by NAZI'S over at the "UN VETO" thread!

    I can REALLY use some SUPPORT there.

    By: bluestateman on November 12, 2006 at 05:11am

    Note the emphasis of the word SUPPORT above?

    As in: Give Israel Your United SUPPORT (GIYUS)

    YOU'RE TOTALLY BUSTED!

    Look at this:

    "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.

    Do it now. For Israel.

    Amir Gissin Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department

    GIYUS currently claims 24,000 Megaphone users."

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/giyus_megaphone/

    Click here:

    http://www.eretz.com/NEW/

    Scroll down to this:

    GIYUS.ORG - Give Israel Your United Support

    "Many of us recognize that the internet is the new battleground for Israel's image. Now is the time to improve our efforts on this front by better coordinating our on-line efforts. An Israeli software company has developed a free, safe, and useful tool for this purpose: the Internet Megaphone. Please go to www.giyus.org and download the megaphone. You will then receive daily updates with links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a response, and more."

    "PROBLEMATIC ARTICLES?"

    Oh - you mean TRUTHFUL!

    Yeah, that's a problem - when you're a FALSE FLAG TERRORIST.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 08:40am

20. Shouldn't Kristol have a Medal of Freedom bestowed upon him?

    While I agree with the general idea behind JAKOB's post, what kind of criteria should a "news" magazine use to sell copy? I would think accuracy would be high up on that list. Obviously conservative media has never shared that opinion, what with their star lineups of wrong-again America worshipers . I guess Time is just trying to jump on that bandwagon.

    Write Time, include the comments that David has gleaned for us. I will. We are the people of the year, after all.

    Now we can read all about "liberool media" and how the America-haters control everything.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/02/2007 @ 08:49am

21. David,

    Corporate media is pro-Republican. End of story. It's why we come to the Nation?!

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/02/2007 @ 08:50am

22. Orwellian 'Hate Speech' law to be re-introduced by the ADL this week

    http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=65497

    BBC: Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost' (for Israel!):

    http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=65532

    Posted by plunger at 01/02/2007 @ 09:09am

23. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 01/02/2007 @ 08:37am

    JAKOB, say NPR and PBS were "fully funded", double budgets, whatever.....would the ratings of "Forum" or "Talk of the Nation" truly compete with Limbaugh and Hannity? Would "The Lehrer News Hour" hold up to "Special Edition"?

    I think not. Public broadcasting "with a little more money" would still be public broadcasting and not likely to appeal outside of its present demographics.

    Like it or not, when Fox News arrived....people started watching it. Like the big doofus or not, O'Reilly still has 2X, 3X the ratings of Keith Olberman, much less "Frontline" at 9pm.

    If people weren't WATCHING the "corporate media", they'd change their programming to fit what the public wants. This "the people are sheeple, led around by the nose by Big Media" is just a varient of the old liberal "The people are stupid" mantra, whenever "the people" aren't doing what the Left want.

    It's elitist and ultimately self-defeating, since all it does is demand that "the rules must be changed, so we can win easier!", instead of the Left doing the HARD work of changing hearts and minds.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 09:14am

24. Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 09:14am

    Correction, the Fox evening news show I think is "Special Report", not "Special Edition"....right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 09:15am

25. "The person they really need at Time is ME, David Corn. I'm a best selling(?) author. By the way, here's a commercial for my latest tome...

    *****

    DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here. "

    Posted by woodyee at 01/02/2007 @ 09:46am

26. Posted by WOODYEE 01/02/2007 @ 09:46am

    Actually, WOOD, the RESE/PLUNGER conspiracy nuts (noted one of them is here already with a dozen C&Ps) would probably object to Mr Corn appearing in "Time" as well...

    given (unlike some) Mr Corn has come out AGAINST not only impeachment, but "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"....and called them distractions and draining energy from real issues like minimum wage and ending the war in Iraq.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 10:08am

27. Corn:

    But -- fortunate for him -- the world of punditry is a rather imperfect marketplace.

    Fortunate for you, too. Remember Richard Armitage?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/02/2007 @ 10:11am

28. Mask,

    You seem to be ecstatic that Bush's impeachment will not come about although if anyone deserves impeachment, it is G W Bush. But more to the point, you are absolutely correct. These rightwing and leftwing fanatics who are totally clueless about the world are the mainstream media, however one wants to define that. But the bigger story that will not be addressed is unwillingness either based in ignorance or stupidity of the American society as a whole who refuse to dump trash like Kristol when surely he needs dumping.................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 10:20am

29. David Corn,

    As Katrina Vanden Huevel likes to say a politics which blames the American people is dead on arrival. Well, not giving the American public the cold dose of water it needs to face up to its shortcomings is exactly why the U.S. is in the mess it is in in Iraq and elsewhere. Politicans are often called cowards for not speaking their minds and stating the truth. I agree and disagree with that. True, I agree they are cowards for not telling the truth. But that is attributed to an American public that DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH AND COULD NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH EVEN IF THEY WERE TOLD. I wonder how many people STILL WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ TO BEGIN WITH EVEN IF THEY WERE TOLD WHERE WE WOULD BE IN 2007 FROM THE POINT OF INVASION IN 2003?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 10:27am

30. If simplely being wrong about an event is criteria for dismisal, then old Cornball himself would have been unemployed years ago...

    ...seems he was wrong about nearly everything in his book...or is it now being offered on the discount table as a novel?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/02/2007 @ 10:35am

31. "Corporate media is pro-Republican. End of story. It's why we come to the Nation?!

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/02/2007 @ 08:50am'

    I come here for the jokes...like the above post..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/02/2007 @ 10:36am

32. But more to the point, you are absolutely correct.

    Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 10:20am

    Should have just stopped with this....hehe.

    "As Katrina Vanden Huevel likes to say a politics which blames the American people is dead on arrival..... But that is attributed to an American public that DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH AND COULD NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH EVEN IF THEY WERE TOLD."

    Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 10:27am

    Uh, POSEI? You seem to be contradicting (or atleast sabotaging) yourself there, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 10:45am

33. Katrina vanden Heuvel

    KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THEN PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 10:58am

34. Katrina vanden Heuvel

    Time is not on your side, our side, or anyone else's side. Time is of the essence and the world has no time to lose. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will buy Bush's war by not cutting off funding. And when they do that, they will FALL in November 2008.

    KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THEN PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 11:01am

35. Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 11:01am

    I know this is YOUR favorite Cut&Paste....but why are you spamming it to KVH on a ...David Corn thread?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 11:07am

36. who the hell still reads Time? not even at the dentist.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2007 @ 11:16am

37. "who the hell still reads Time? not even at the dentist.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/02/2007 @ 11:16am "

    I also place Time, Newsweek and People on the same ignore list, among countless other rags...,mostly ads....and weak writing.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/02/2007 @ 11:41am

38. Uh, RIO....not that I have a problem with them, but, uh...

    You might want to look into that Free Speech Coalition [en.wikipedia.org] that you quoted....a good God-fearing moral Christian such as yourself might not want to be linked to them!

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 11:55am

39. Uh, RIO....not that I have a problem with them, but, uh...

    You might want to look into that Free Speech Coalition [en.wikipedia.org] that you quoted....a good God-fearing moral Christian such as yourself might not want to be linked to them!

    Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 11:55am

    That's possibly the funniest confirmation of Rio Bullshit's abject stupidity, and his notable habit of blind cutting-and-pasting articles he doesn't even really comprehend...

    I hate to do it, but I have to compliment you on pointing that one out, Mask.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/02/2007 @ 12:05pm

40. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/02/2007 @ 12:05am

    Hey, I got no problem with the porn guys advocating for the 1st Amendment. Big free speech advocate and fan of "The People vs. Larry Flynt".

    Just ODD that RIO would use THEM as a corroborating source!!!

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 12:13pm

41. Mr. Corn & Mask:

    Given Billy Kristol's record, you might say he is to political commentary what Dan Marino is to football prognostication. Wrong all the time but still with a guaranteed contract. Maybe there's a sexual reason for keeping him around. What say you Mask?

    Posted by Maske at 01/02/2007 @ 12:34pm

42. Well - Conservative Republicans are not the intellectual elites, some of them even admit. They may be simple, but at least they never change their mind, oh sometimes they do - but not when it comes to defending Authoritarianism.

    That is why William Kristol is not a genius - certainly concerning foreign policy. If you want someone who is a genius you have to talk to someone who is something called a Liberal.

    Liberals told you so, yet Conservatives refused to listen to our golden advice. Dont try to get Iraqs oil because you wont get it, but do go after Osama Bin Laden. Conservatives refused to listen to either idea, and those lone holdout Bush-dupes still havent got anything to say for themselves, they just want to keep digging their hole to the moon with other peoples bodies, limbs, and families.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 01/02/2007 @ 12:39pm

43. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 01/02/2007 @ 12:39am

    The first sophmoric post of the new year.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/02/2007 @ 12:59pm

44. Mr. Corn & Mask:

    . . . What say you Mask?

    Posted by MASKE 01/02/2007 @ 12:34am

    Is this the beginning of cell division?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:05pm

45. But if we want better informed citizens, I suggest that we support public media.

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 01/02/2007 @ 08:37am

    Does public media have a better record on Iraq and America's foreign policy in general than private media? Does it do anything more than put lipstick on the pig? I think not.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:08pm

46. What say you Mask?

    Posted by MASKE 01/02/2007 @ 12:34am

    I say....keep with your old nick, HSUB!...hehe

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:09pm

47. Does public media have a better record on Iraq and America's foreign policy in general than private media? Does it do anything more than put lipstick on the pig? I think not.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person

    do you recall NPR beating the war drums in 2002?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

48. They may be simple, but at least they never change their mind

    Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 01/02/2007 @ 12:39am

    Uh, LP...when have you EVER heard of a liberal "changing his mind" or even admitting that a policy of theirs was a failure? I'd love an example.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

49. BTW, as noted earlier, David Corn came out against both impeachment and 9/11 Conspiracy theories as distractions and taking away energy from truly important issues like minimum wage and the war in Iraq (paraphrasing, so won't use "quotes" to disturb my editor LILLIAN).

    But, now, I heard it on that "partisan corporate-owned media"....Air America Radio....so take it for what it's worth on it being accurate...hehe!

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:14pm

50. The plain reality is that America's news media has strong similarities to the news media in the former Soviet Union. There's a distict nomenklatura that has no membership requirements related to insight, knowledge, accuracy, or honesty.

    Every society has a political class and that political class will protect itself by making sure that it's representatives dominate the major sources of information and opinion that are consumed by mass society.

    The new alternative sources are limited by the fact that it's easier for mass society to turn on the television and consume simple, uncomplicated social information.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:17pm

51. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 1:08pm

    do you recall NPR beating the war drums in 2002?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Do you recall them beating the not-war drums? What's in-between besides lipstick?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:19pm

52. I have found NPR and other public media to be a voice of reason in unreasonable times.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2007 @ 1:25pm

53. Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 10:45am | ignore this person

    I don't think so, MASK, for I believe that even if the truth were told prior to the invasion there would have been majority support among the public to go to war anyway. Furthermore, falsehoods of WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda were clear for all to see prior to the Nov 2004 election and still people voted for a President who at best clearly misled them into a war that should have never been waged. The only reason why people are now against the war is because victory has not been quick and decisive, which WELL INFORMED AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE KNEW WOULD NEVER HAPPEN............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:27pm

54. I find the much commented upon 3000th US military casualty an absurdity. three dead american GIs would have been too many, for what has been accomplished in Iraq.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2007 @ 1:27pm

55. MASK,

    As for my favorit cut and paste, everyone at the nation should hear the message, because it is the right message to be sent.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:28pm

56. Posted by WOODYEE 01/02/2007 @ 09:46am

    Oops, someone else is vying for Masks job.

    Mask just usually says something unrelated to the topic, or pounds one topic ten feet into the ground when no one else cares.(see David Corns books and his desire to sell them on his blog, an inexcusable affront to society)

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

    And Rio, of all people, is concerned about freedom of the press and the right to address grievances.

    Oh, boy. I sure am sorry I am out of pumpkin pie, for that is the perfect place for the richest, creamiest irony yet seen here, after the Christians calling for Death.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/02/2007 @ 1:28pm

57. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/02/2007 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person

    Not really absurd, but tragic. But it does make the point that if three dead was not worth the failing effort, then what does one say about three thousand dead for a failing effort?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:30pm

58. Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person

    Suffice it to say these people are not true christians but instead are religious fanatics run amok. despise abortion because they feel it is murder but clap and cheer the death penalty being applied. Wannabe Christians who take those positions sound like NATURAL BORN KILLERS to me................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:33pm

59. NPR was closer to the truth on Iraqi WMD's and the non-threat posed than ANY MSM source. They actually had opposing arguments. They had Ritter, David Albright, and even the "wrongerers" Hans Blix and Albaradi(sp) on their programs. Imagine if the nation had listened to them instead of Kristol, The Drug Addict and Bubba Oh, Really?.

    Is it really so hard for the warmongers to admit they were taken in? Clearly it is. Real men can admit when they are wrong.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/02/2007 @ 1:34pm

60. I have been wrong before, and will be again. I was wrong to believe Powell when he spoke at the UN about Iraqi WMD's. I believed him. That was wrong.

    There. Not so hard.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/02/2007 @ 1:36pm

61. POSEI....how do you reconcile this--

    "Furthermore, falsehoods of WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda were clear for all to see prior to the Nov 2004 election and still people voted for a President who at best clearly misled them into a war that should have never been waged. The only reason why people are now against the war is because victory has not been quick and decisive, which WELL INFORMED AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE KNEW WOULD NEVER HAPPEN............"----Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 1:27pm

    and this---

    "As Katrina Vanden Huevel likes to say a politics which blames the American people is dead on arrival."----Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 10:27am

    Is Ms vanden Heuvel right or not? Or do you think that saying that the American people are NOT "WELL INFORMED AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE" somehow isn't "blaming" them?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:37pm

62. BTW, I LOVE when CRABWALK quotes.....CRABWALK!

    "Mask just usually says something unrelated to the topic, or pounds one topic ten feet into the ground when no one else cares.(see David Corns books and his desire to sell them on his blog, an inexcusable affront to society)"----Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 1:28pm

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:39pm

63. I have been wrong before, and will be again. I was wrong to believe Powell when he spoke at the UN about Iraqi WMD's. I believed him. That was wrong.

    There. Not so hard.

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person

    Are you serious? All he did was show a view photos and play a tape of some bs. With all the resources this country has, if these weapons existed there would have been much more convincing proof.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 1:40pm

64. I just visited time.com and cancelled my subscription. I followed it up with an email that told them that the reason for my cancellation was that I wasn't going to spend a dime on a publication that gave William Kristol a forum for his right-wing rants. Here's hoping a lot of other Time subscribers do the same!

    Posted by reddogs at 01/02/2007 @ 1:41pm

65. I have found NPR and other public media to be a voice of reason in unreasonable times.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/02/2007 @ 1:25pm

    "FAIR's four-month study of NPR in 1993 found 10 think tanks that were cited twice or more. In a new four-month study (5/03–8/03), the list of think tanks cited two or more times has grown to 17, accounting for 133 appearances.

    FAIR classified each think tank by ideological orientation as either centrist, right of center or left of center. Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one: 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks provided sources for 56 appearances."

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

    15 left of center (you know as well as I do that doesn't mean "leftists", it means "liberals"; "leftists" rarely get on NPR, if ever)

    56 centrists

    62 right of center

    I would find it hard to believe that those 56 centrists and 62 right of center were not on NPR speaking acceptingly of the drive to the invasion of Iraq. It wouldn't surprise if some of the "left of center" were.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:41pm

66. Posted by REDDOGS 01/02/2007 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

    Exactly! I couldn't agree with you more........................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:44pm

67. Is Ms vanden Heuvel right or not? Or do you think that saying that the American people are NOT "WELL INFORMED AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE" somehow isn't "blaming" them?!?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

    What's wrong with calling a spade a spade?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 1:46pm

68. Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

    MASK,

    Are you losing it? As I post, As KVH likes to say...........What she says is not what I say. I say tell the American people the truth, whether it makes them "feel good or not". People should make up their minds based on facts and evidence, not far rightwing and far leftwing feel good rhetoric................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:47pm

69. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 1:41pm

    And right-wing "watchdogs" like Accuracy in Media find that the Media is "overwhelmingly liberal".

    FAIR has an agenda and then AMAZINGLY discovers that its agenda is right when it "studies" the Media.

    It's like Eric Alterman. He's left of Dennis Kucinich, and he "examines the Media" and discovers that the Media "is overwhelmingly conservative".....same with Limbaugh on the Right.

    Personally, I think that proves that the media, even such "dogmatic right-wingers" like NPR and PBS!?!?!?!!?....is fairly in the center and represents the Middle!

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:47pm

70. maasch,

    corn never made any claim that he (corn, himself) has never been wrong. corn is talking about kristol, in case you didn't read the article. corn also provides numerous citations from kristol to buttress his claims.

    mask, too, you are not addressing corn's central claim.

    again, two right wingers who can't address the central arguments made in most of these blogs, and instead find other (useless) ways to diminish thoughtful debate.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/02/2007 @ 1:47pm

71. "For a public radio service intended to provide an independent alternative to corporate-owned and commercially driven mainstream media, NPR is surprisingly reliant on mainstream journalists. At least 83 percent of journalists appearing on NPR in June 2003 were employed by commercial U.S. media outlets, many at outlets famous for influencing news-room agendas throughout the country (16 from the New York Times alone, and another seven from the Washington Post ). Only five sources came from independent news outlets like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the National Catholic Reporter."

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

    L-I-P-S-T-I-C-K

    That's a good one. Contribute money to public radio so you can hear the same mainstream news media in a different format. Maybe the objective for some is simply is to get the same thing in a more "intellectual" format.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:48pm

72. What's wrong with calling a spade a spade?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 1:46pm

    Nothing...if you're honest about it. If you think the majority of Americans are stupid because they rarely (except last November) don't agree with you....fine. Just be up-front about it!

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:48pm

73. it is well-known throughout intellectual circles that bill kristol, although a very cordial human being, has been so wrong, about so many different foreign policy issues, that his credibility is beyond worn thin. everything that comes out of his mouth these days is "more aggression", when the established military figures are saying, "more diplomacy".

    Posted by darladoon at 01/02/2007 @ 1:49pm

74. mask, too, you are not addressing corn's central claim.

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/02/2007 @ 1:47pm

    !?!?!?!?!?... am I OFF the DD "Ignore List"!??!!??! It IS a New Year, huh?

    No, DD, I addressed it. I said he was wasting his time complaining about it. Kristol, doofus hawk that he is, is part of the "Beltway Club" and will NEVER be ostracized, even punished for his stupidity....neither will many goofy Dems (like Bob Shrum).

    Move on, David.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 1:50pm

75. Most of the population doesn't want "news"; they want entertainment, they want their beliefs reaffirmed, they do not want to be contradicted. And the vast majority are oblivious to the fact that they are bombarded with propaganda in the guise of "news".

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 1:53pm

76. This seems as precise an analogy as we can expect for how the American version of the free market works: those who are in get more, those who are out get to watch those who are in as a form of perverse entertainment, knowing the ins are buffoons but envious to the max of their wealth and power. We hear-tell that our great country is about knowhow and gumption but we rarely actually see-tell this in reality. Kristol, like his idiot god W, is the son of a corrupt little gibbon who was spared the dreariness of having to move through life without someone to draft behind. Social Darwinism my ass.

    As for Time, who gives a crap. Corn lists the large number of space occupiers they enlist, a gaggle of dimwits who delight readers by their commitment to warping the English language to present a previously unimaginably awful and inaccurate view of the world. Their essays at the backs of the rag exist for the same reason that daredevils exist: it's little secret most of us hope for a crash rather than a safe landing. Let us know when Krauthammer,for example, stops playing the part of the Child Catcher on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and finally presents a reasoned evaluation about anything.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/02/2007 @ 1:54pm

77. Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

    Mask,

    But more to the point, remember when Howard Dean said that capturing Saddam would MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN DEFEATING THE INSURGENCY IN IRAQ? Remember how every rightwing fanatic this side of Hell's Paradise cried foul and unpatriotic etc.? No one could even go before the public and say, yeah, it is all well and good that Saddam has been caught, but in terms of the greater problem of the insurgency in Iraq, this will make no difference in the outcome. Imagine if Kerry had said those words during the 2004 campaign? His vote total, relatively speaking, would have been lower than Ralph Nader..................Afterall, a genuine war hero with the Silver Star was the coward and the war draft dodger turned out to be the "hero". Reconcile that one.......

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:54pm

78. KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THEN PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.

    Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 11:01am

    I've been meaning to say I agree with this. Don't concern yourself with MASK's parakeet-like screeching. If the Democrats can't finally, finally take a strong stand on getting our country out of the Republican Party's train wreck then they are good for nothing. What's the objective- to serve their constituents or help the engineers of the train wreck save their jobs?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 1:54pm

79. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 01/02/2007 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person

    That was...............Brilliant. Par Excellance.............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:56pm

80. Nothing...if you're honest about it. If you think the majority of Americans are stupid because they rarely (except last November) don't agree with you....fine. Just be up-front about it!

    Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person

    It's not about being "stupid". The right is always framing the argument in those terms. It's not about intelligence, it's about being objective. If you approach any issue with an open mind, take more than one perspective, your chances of discovering the "truth" is much improved.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 1:56pm

81. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person

    I agree with you 100 percent. But trust me, I keep MASK at arm's length in terms of listening to what he says. What he says more times than not I take with a grain of salt and realize that while he claims to oppose the war, he is still too partisan to the right on most everything else.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 1:59pm

82. I just visited time.com and cancelled my subscription. I followed it up with an email that told them that the reason for my cancellation was that I wasn't going to spend a dime on a publication that gave William Kristol a forum for his right-wing rants. Here's hoping a lot of other Time subscribers do the same!

    Posted by REDDOGS 01/02/2007 @ 1:41pm

    I would if I hadn't cancelled it twenty years ago. :)

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 2:00pm

83. "Every society has a political class and that political class will protect itself by making sure that it's representatives dominate the major sources of information and opinion that are consumed by mass society. "

    ...replace the words information with "resources"(tax payers money)...and you will find the reason so many of us do not want any liberals NEAR it...especially those of us who actually worked to make the money in the fist place...and I am accounting for the fact we had no conservatives in Congress for 6 years

    Posted by john maasch at 01/02/2007 @ 2:10pm

84. MTSPENCE05, MASK,

    I CAN PROMISE YOU, EVEN IF PEOPLE KNEW THEN WHAT THEY KNOW NOW ABOUT ABSENT WMDs, NO TIES TO AL QAEDA, ETC. IF THIS WAR HAD BEEN WON IN SIX WEEKS AS THE CAKE-WALKERS SAID IT WOULD, PEOPLE WOULD NEVER CARE THAT THEY WERE EVER LIED TO. THEY WOULD CHEERLEAD ANYWAY.

    But one has to be intelligent enough to say I shall look at this with an open mind and be objective in my decision making. Anyone who does not take the matters of war and peace seriously enough to warrant being objective is not too bright in my book. Television, even though it is unrealistic in many ways in terms of storylines and the incredible feats the hero(s) undertakes gives you the basic idea that conflict(s) war(s) kill people and destroy(s) societie(s). Stop making excuses for people. If George Bush and Dick Cheney could never say up-front and flat-out that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept 11 attacks, then why would anyone who possesses any honest intellectual capacity, support going to war against a nation that did not attack us and did not want war with us? Besides the fearful cowards, the neo-con crazies, and the Military Industrial Complex and Oil people, who else could be that stupid? One Percent Doctrine Indeed..........

    Nothing...if you're honest about it. If you think the majority of Americans are stupid because they rarely (except last November) don't agree with you....fine. Just be up-front about it!

    Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 2:10pm

85. This is how NPR "didn't beat the war drums". A superb job if the objective was to grease the skids:

    "National Public Radio, another target of FAIR's action alert, has also offered a correction of its misleading coverage of the D.C. protest. The following message is now posted on NPR's website:

    On Saturday, October 26, in a story on the protest in Washington, D.C. against a U.S. war with Iraq, we erroneously reported on All Things Considered that the size of the crowd was "fewer than 10,000." While Park Service employees gave no official estimate, it is clear that the crowd was substantially larger than that. On Sunday, October 27, we reported on Weekend Edition that the crowd estimated by protest organizers was 100,000. We apologize for the error. (note: "On October 30, the Times reported that the October 26 protests "drew 100,000 by police estimates")

    FAIR thanks all of the activists who wrote to the New York Times and NPR about their coverage of the D.C. protests. Those who did write or call might consider sending a follow-up note to the outlets to encourage serious, ongoing coverage of the growing antiwar movement."

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1640

    It's exceedingly difficult to believe that an eyewitness can't tell the difference between less than 10,000 and 100,000 (or, plus) protesters.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 2:12pm

86. Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person

    If you listened to and believe that bogey-man presentation, then I am disappointed in you......................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 2:16pm

87. I don't agree that the American public would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if they had received a truthful evaluation from the major news media (among which I count "public" broadcasting). If that were the case the gigantic, many months long lying campaign from the Bush admin and it's collaborators in the major news media wouldn't have been necessary. That's the primary proof that the average American is not in the least stupid but simply, crudely misinformed.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 2:21pm

88. the average American is not in the least stupid but simply, crudely misinformed.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person

    It's not crude. The misinformation is calculated, intentional. For the average citizen the mainstream press is reality. If you don't read alternatives sources and your mind is closed you are essentially indoctrinated by the powers that be. It's subtle, extremely well crafted propaganda, so much so that people don't even notice it. And when someone such as a Hollywood celeb uses his/her position to try and point out what should be obvious, the Right claims that the "Liberal" is talking down to them.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

89. The thirteenth "Plan For Victory", the thirteenth scapegoat for the Republican Bush admin's rank incompetence, and more Americans to die on the greasily smoking, pagan altar of George W. Bush's historical legacy of not being a loser:

    Mr. Bush grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.

    General Casey was scheduled to shift out of Iraq in the summer. But now it appears that it may happen in February or March.

    By mid-September, Mr. Bush was disappointed with the results in Iraq and signed off on a complete review of Iraq strategy -- a review centered in Washington, not in Baghdad. (because that's where the best stupid decisions are made)

    Many of Mr. Bush's advisers say their timetable for completing an Iraq review had been based in part on a judgment that for Mr. Bush to have voiced doubts about his strategy before the midterm elections in November would have been politically catastrophic. (The best interests of American troops? That isn't relevant, is it?)

    Visiting the Pentagon a few weeks ago for a classified briefing on Iraq with his generals, Mr. Bush made it clear that he was not interested in any ideas that would simply allow American forces to stabilize the violence.

    "What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win," he quoted the president as warning his commanders, "not how we're going to leave."

    http://tinyurl.com/yzxg2f

    Save America - Impeach Bush/Cheney

    And then send the Republican Party back to their caves.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

90. If you approach any issue with an open mind, take more than one perspective, your chances of discovering the "truth" is much improved.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 1:56pm

    Hmm?...okay, what issues do you see BOTH sides of?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 2:31pm

91. See, here's where FRB is either an idiot or dishonest (maybe both)-

    "Save America - Impeach Bush/Cheney

    And then send the Republican Party back to their caves."---Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

    But for nearly six weeks now, (check his posts) he's been telling us that "The Dems are no better than the Repubs", "They're selling us out", "Pelosi is a traitor for saying impeachment is off the table".

    So....WHO is going to impeach Bush/Cheney, FRB...and why only the Repubs back to the caves, if the Dems are no better?!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 2:33pm

92. Hmm?...okay, what issues do you see BOTH sides of?

    Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

    Name one.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 2:33pm

93. But one has to be intelligent enough to say I shall look at this with an open mind and be objective in my decision making. Anyone who does not take the matters of war and peace seriously enough to warrant being objective is not too bright in my book.

    Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 2:10pm

    ergo..."The American people are stupid". POSEI, either stick with that or stop saying it and agree with Ms vanden Heuvel that "a politics which blames the American people is dead on arrival" and say it's DOA....can't do both.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 2:35pm

94. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 2:33pm

    No....I'm asking YOU to name some. You say you should "approach any issue with an open mind, take more than one perspective"....

    okay, name some issues that you approach with an open mind and take more than one perspective.

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 2:36pm

95. "What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win," he quoted the president as warning his commanders, "not how we're going to leave."

    http://tinyurl.com/yzxg2f

    The Bush Presidency in a nutshell: "I want to hear what I want to hear." And Republicans can't worship him enough.

    America, are you finally realizing that people like this cannot be trusted with any responsible public office that requires decisionmaking?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 2:38pm

96. You've got me confused with some ideologue hack. I'm a pragmatist and I think the theme of my past posts--balance--reflects that.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 2:39pm

97. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 2:39pm

    That's great, MSTP.....now could you NAME some of the issues you're "pragmatic" on?

    Lotta CLAIMS to pragmatism and "objectivity and seeing more than one perspective" by you...but not sure I know of any issues that you've commented on.

    Abortion?...gay rights?...energy policy?...war in Iraq?...impeaching Bush & Cheney?....taxes?....universal health care from the Fed?.....Wal-mart?

    Not trying to start a fight, but I see a lot of "I'm bipartisan and objective in my thinking, not an idealogue" posts on the Blogs, but it's usually from people who drift Left, but don't want to get lumped in as a liberal and have to defend it against the wackiness.

    (BTW, happy to list MY views on the above if needed!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 2:54pm

98. "Foremost among this band is William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle. Kristol, a Fox News regular, has not seen his standing as a go-to conservative pundit suffered. Moreover, he has been rewarded with a plum posting. Time magazine's new managing editor, Richard Stengel, has invited Kristol to become what Stengel calls a "star" columnist for the magazine."

    I read the article, and I really don't have any serious issues with it. Mr. Corn slams a lot people. However, there's one thing that caught my eye and it was his quote about Bill Kristol getting a plum position at Time.

    Why did he bother to mention Mr. Kristol's new post? Could it be that he was going for the same job and didn't get it?? Should Richard Stengel have chosen an "outsider" instead of someone whom he is friends with? Perhaps Mr. Corn felt he was better suited to bring a different perspective to the magazine.

    Afterall, Time pays much more than the Nation...and they don't have a bad following even if there are some who disagree with hiring Bill Kristol.

    Just my thoughts....I'm on break, gotta get back to work...Chow..

    Posted by ACook at 01/02/2007 @ 2:57pm

99. Abortion? I am pro-choice with certain limits. Why? First off, I am not a Christian or anything else; I am not biased by a religious belief. Second, I am an American and I truly believe in the right to choose what is best for yourself (you can do whatever you want in your backyard as long as what you're doing doesn't get over the fence and affect me).

    Wal-Mart? Getting such a low price means someone has to pay. There is no free lunch.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 3:03pm

100. The straight skinny on NPR:

     http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=21

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 3:09pm

101. Mask, I believe that those who opposed emissions trading now mostly admit it is a good thing

     Posted by LiberalPride at 01/02/2007 @ 3:12pm

102. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 01/02/2007 @ 3:12pm

     Assume that's a response to this--Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

     Uh..."emissions trading"?!?!?! The major issues facing the world today and liberals are gracious enough to admit that the FEW that opposed emissions trading were wrong???

     Isn't that like the conservative who says "I admit global warming is happening....but I still support war in Iraq, prayer in school, and keeping Muslims out of the country" and considers it a "major concession to the Left"???

     But if it's the best you can come up with...okay.

     Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 3:20pm

103. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 3:03pm

     Good start, MTSP....although...."certain limits" needs specificity.

     And what IS your view of Wal-mart? "Can't fight it, might as well move on to other issues" or "Tough titties for the $1 a day guys who make the WM shoes"?

     Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 3:21pm

104. Like I said, there is no free lunch. Some body is getting squeezed in order to get a low, low price. All the "bubbas" love Wal-Mart because of the low prices; all the while they are slowly slitting their own throats.

     Limits on abortion? I would think that not allowing an abortion after three months except for medical reason is reasonable. And if a person has a problem with abortion he/she should labor to have quality sex education available to teenagers, along with easy access to effective contraception. (Yeah, yeah, teenagers are much too young to be having sex, but it's natural--it's our society that is abnormal: Humans did not develope in an industrialized society; what you had to learn and master in a hunting/gathering culture you could accomplish by your early teen years. For all of those thousands of years, the teen years were comparable to what the late 20's and early 30's are today.)

     The right always wants to speak of "common sense." Well, if you don't have all the information available, it's more than difficult to have a "common sense" solution to any problem.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 3:35pm

105. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 3:35pm

     Okay, on the abortion thing....I kind of agree, except that "medical reasons" is still vague. Fetal abnormalities...or is "I think I might be depressed about this pregnancy, Doc, I want to terminate" count? (It's a dicey situation, there's no "right" answer, but vagueries MUST be eliminated if possible).

     On Walmart, fine...but what are you prepared to DO about it?....Some kind of state-imposed wage/benefits hike to WM workers?...Zoning out of business WMs?....tariffs?

     or nothing, just lump it?

     Posted by Mask at 01/02/2007 @ 4:16pm

106. Okay, on the abortion thing....I kind of agree, except that "medical reasons" is still vague. Fetal abnormalities...or is "I think I might be depressed about this pregnancy, Doc, I want to terminate" count? (It's a dicey situation, there's no "right" answer, but vagueries MUST be eliminated if possible).

     On Walmart, fine...but what are you prepared to DO about it?....Some kind of state-imposed wage/benefits hike to WM workers?...Zoning out of business WMs?....tariffs?

     or nothing, just lump it?

     Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

     You asked me what issues, if any, I try to view objectively. I provided a couple of examples. Wal-Mart is much like everything else: a balance is needed.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2007 @ 4:27pm

107. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person

     I disagree. People in this country are dumbed down and brain dead. I use the example of Howard Dean, in one moment of candor, when he said that capturing Saddam would make no difference in the outcome of Iraq and he was of course shouted down as being unpatriotic. Do you really think that John Kerry could have made the same statement and been received with an "open mind" from the populace at large during the 2004 campaign? I don't think so. Another tidbit of evidence, I say conduct another poll and ask how many people think that racial profiling of Middle Eastern and Arab/Muslim men should be carried out to stop terrorism. You will be surprised by the numbers..................

     Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 5:05pm

108. MTSPENCE05,

     MY MESSAGE IS NOT JUST FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AT LARGE, IT ESPECIALLY GOES FOR THOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE CONGRESS, AND THE COURTS:

     Misinformation is no excuse. Stop making excuses for a dumbed down society that is not willing to delve deeper into things and think for themselves. The U.S. decided and supported initially going to war against Iraq for the following reasons: Non-existent WMDs? (how could Saddam make WMDs with 12 years of sanctions against and no-fly zones over his country splitting it into thirds?) One terrorist in Iraq? who supposedly met with one Iraqi out of millions in Prague? (In that case the city of Miami should have been totally leveled due to the arrest of the Miami Seven because I am quite sure they knew someone else outside of their group) He gassed the Kurds 15 years prior? (Oh please, then he had U.S. assistance of course) It's better to fight the terrorists there than to fight them here?(current American death toll in Iraq kills that idea) If we withdraw they will follow us home on the C-130s sitting right next to General George Casey and the rest of the troops? They will greet us as liberators with flowers and chocolates? The flowers of liberal Democracy will bloom as we stride by in parades before a grateful Iraqi public where there is no history of such? It will be a "CAKEWALK"? We went to war sacrificing hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives and spent over 450 billion dollars thus far for this? Think what you will but any populace who is willing to go to war for such frivolous reasons and non-existent evidence doesn't have too many people with IQs above their shoe sizes living within it.....

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person

     It's not crude. The misinformation is calculated, intentional. For the average citizen the mainstream press is reality. If you don't read alternatives sources and your mind is closed you are essentially indoctrinated by the powers that be. It's subtle, extremely well crafted propaganda, so much so that people don't even notice it. And when someone such as a Hollywood celeb uses his/her position to try and point out what should be obvious, the Right claims that the "Liberal" is talking down to them.

     Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 5:28pm

109. Posted by MADLIB 01/02/2007 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person

     Good dose of cold water to bring to the conversation. People need to be told the truth, pleasant or unpleasant whether it makes them "Feel Good or not"..................

     Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 5:31pm

110. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person

     Since the Democrats have long since folded as being any real loyal opposition, the question now becomes, what do we intend to do about it?

     Posted by POSEIDON at 01/02/2007 @ 5:35pm

111. Kristol should be one of the ones tried as war criminals. He has never been anything else, other than a right wing blow-hole. He is truly irrelevant

     Posted by Randy Clere at 01/02/2007 @ 5:47pm

112. The rule for columnists in major publications seems to be the same as the rule for NFL coaches: all that matters is that you have a track record. You can be a total loser, wrong on everything, but if you have a track record as a columnist, bingo, you're in, ala Mr. Kristol. I think the whole lot of them should be shipped off to the middle east.

     Posted by dread1 at 01/02/2007 @ 6:54pm

113. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:21pm

     I disagree. People in this country are dumbed down and brain dead.

     Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 5:05pm

     And I say what you call "dumbed down and brain dead" is a result of the superb job the major news media does to legitimate falsehood. If the major news media was publishing insightful and truthful information the great majority of the American people would make intelligent decisions. As it is the decisions they make are intelligent but based on false information. You can't rightfully expect everyone in the world to be issues-oriented and well informed in spite of the major news media. The guilty parties are the major news media nomenklatura.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 7:30pm

114. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person

     I disagree. People in this country are dumbed down and brain dead. I use the example of Howard Dean, in one moment of candor, when he said that capturing Saddam would make no difference in the outcome of Iraq and he was of course shouted down as being unpatriotic. Do you really think that John Kerry could have made the same statement and been received with an "open mind" from the populace at large during the 2004 campaign? I don't think so. Another tidbit of evidence, I say conduct another poll and ask how many people think that racial profiling of Middle Eastern and Arab/Muslim men should be carried out to stop terrorism. You will be surprised by the numbers..................

     Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 5:05pm

     Dean was attacked by the political class, including a lot of the Democratic Party, and the falsehood of the premise of the attacks was never questioned by the major news media. It, in fact, gave wide coverage to the numbskull attacks which thereby legitimized them.

     If the major news media had treated the attacks as what they were, stupid, most of the American people would have seen the truth of the issue. I'll repeat, the American people are not dumb, they are misled.

     If you want an example of people who are truly dumb take a look at the dozen or so numbskulls who post here and still assert that Iraq had WMD and was working hand-in-hand with al-Qaeda no matter how much information is made available to them.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 7:43pm

115. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 2:38pm

     Since the Democrats have long since folded as being any real loyal opposition, the question now becomes, what do we intend to do about it?

     Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 5:35pm

     If they don't start representing the best interests of the American people, and soon, then they should be treated like the worthless drones that they are. Stop voting for them and never stop telling anyone who will listen why. Contribute money to and support candidates who are willing to act in the best interests of the average American. That's about all we can do. Take a look at the "religious" right-wing for an example of effective political organizing.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 7:51pm

116. Why does the newsmagazine's new chief believe America needs to hear more from a war-pushing commentator who was wrong about Iraq?

     Answer----Because very few people want to hear from you Mr. Corn

     Posted by Len Mosse at 01/02/2007 @ 7:58pm

117. On February 20, 2003, he summed up the argument for war against Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world....France and Germany don't have the courage to face up to the situation. That's too bad. Most of Europe is with us. And I think we will be respected around the world for helping the people of Iraq to be liberated."

     This would be laughable if the results weren't so damn bad...

     Most of Europe is with us? They never were.

     Respected in the Arab world??? I choked on my beer when I read that. Are there any rightwingers in punditry that aren't lost in their own propaganda?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/02/2007 @ 8:28pm

118. Did you personally think of this war, before actually starting the war anyway, as being a huge disgusting mistake? I know I did, and I know plenty of smart people who did, and not to mention the 50 million odd people who voted against the chimp in '04.

     Posted by MADLIB 01/02/2007 @ 8:03pm

     I said to an invasion-advocating Republican in November 2002, "They're f****** lying", and, "America will leave Iraq with it's tail between it's legs". I would love to come across him again now. Not to rub it in but because I think he is intelligent enough to now admit that he made an ill-informed mistake. One of his comments: "Oil could be $10 a barrel." That was probably his most incorrect perception of all. Anyone who thinks that the likes of Dick Cheney would sell oil to America for less than any Iraqi is seriously deluded.

     Iraq was a mistake even for someone with an openly imperialist outlook.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 8:35pm

119. Why does the newsmagazine's new chief believe America needs to hear more from a war-pushing commentator who was wrong about Iraq?

     Answer----Because very few people want to hear from you Mr. Corn

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/02/2007 @ 7:58pm | ignore this person

     a non sequitur from little Lenny Mosse

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2007 @ 8:47pm

120. The Republicans are already starting their hypocritical whining.

     http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002257.php

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/02/2007 @ 8:56pm

121. plenty of folks ejumuhkated way beyond their intelligence. also plenty of folks who know they are spouting bullshit but also know where their bread is buttered.

     i think kristol, like most modern conservative blabbulaters, lies somewhere between the two - not nearly as smart as he and his fans think he is, and at some level aware of his part in the big conservative bullshit machine.

     you know, its not so much a liberal as i am an anti-conservative, at least anti-modern (post modern?) conservative.

     back in the 70's it was the liberals who were the most obnoxious and arrogant ideologues...as a kid and young man i hated liberals for this and stupier reasons, but i dont think they were ever as bad as these modern conservatives.

     such a combination of stupidity, cognitive dissonance, bullshit, and fear of anything other than feel good familiarity...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/02/2007 @ 9:48pm

122. If you listened to and believe that bogey-man presentation, then I am disappointed in you......................

     Posted by POSEIDON 01/02/2007 @ 2:16pm

     I can live with that.

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2007 @ 1:40pm

     Yea, I believed our Sec of State, former chairman of the Joint chiefs, decorated 4 star General with no political history. Then, what was it about 2 weeks later, that Blix and ALbaradi blew Powell out of the water. Shame on me. Then I went back to my former position, that Saddam was toothless, the most intrusive weapons inspection regime ever worked. Even after Clinton messed with it and Chimpy degraded the work they did.

     so, who posed the sophomoric suggestion that the darn lefty pundits were wrong? Who said it will not be a cakewalk, that there was no threat of wmd, that there would be an insurgency, we would be there for years if not decades at a cost of billions? Kristol? Bush? Cheney? Rummy?

     oh, gosh darn it, no fucking way!!! it was the evil left, which included Pat Buchanon, Scott Ritter, Brent Scowcroft and Gerald Ford.

     Is anybody watching Frontline, "The Darkside"? All about Cheney and his lies, promulgated by Kristol.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/02/2007 @ 10:22pm

123. REDBird, which mass news outlet did a better job than NPR. I am not saying that they were perfect, many called it National Pentagon Radio. I don't agree with that either, but they did far better than any other TV or radio network that I know of. Gleaning what they had, specifically Dianne Rehm, I was able to reach the correct conclusion, no wmd's.

     whereas the President of The United States did not.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/02/2007 @ 10:27pm

124. Sounds like Corn is a little jealous of Bill Kristol..was he up for the job, too?....maybe, Time just wants to balance out their viewpoints a little......But really, I only read Time occasionally, mostly when they have an enticing story on the cover....I'm more of an Economist fan....When I start reading Corn (or Kristol) in the Economist, I'll be impressed....

     Posted by davebarlett at 01/02/2007 @ 10:41pm

125. Sounds like Corn is a little jealous of Bill Kristol.

     maybe its like how i used to hate bob saggett for making so much money for being so unfunny...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/02/2007 @ 10:51pm

126. "Looking at the upper echelons of the Republican Party what you see is a Who's Who of Who Dodged and Then Advocated War."

     Like Clinton?"

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/02/2007 @ 9:52pm

     Yes.

     "Clinton" is secret code for "the upper echelons of the Republican Party", not the name of an irrelevant democrat, more than 5 yrs. out of office.

     Why do you ask?

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/02/2007 @ 11:17pm

127. opps! wrong thread! (twice now. I'm on a roll)

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/02/2007 @ 11:20pm

128. " People who depend on magazines like the trash that is known as Time, don't deserve to voice, or for that matter have an opinion."

     Many feel about the same regarding the Nation and its crowd(nice first amendment take BTW)....so, ah, be careful with stupid statements you posted...don't live up to the name....

     Madlib...

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 12:45am

129. Not trying to be inflammatory here, I think you're one of the best in these forums ;)

     Posted by MADLIB 01/02/2007 @ 8:03pm

     Not imflammatory, just have the effect of inflammation..like a low grade fever...just enough there to be annoying.

     Another loon for the KOOK section bidding hard for a seat in the front row....well, FROMREDDEATH has row 1 seat 1...but I can see by this gem above, that you are moving up fast...keep up the good work...we need more lemmings....

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 12:53am

130. REDBird, which mass news outlet did a better job than NPR. I am not saying that they were perfect, many called it National Pentagon Radio. I don't agree with that either, but they did far better than any other TV or radio network that I know of. Gleaning what they had, specifically Dianne Rehm, I was able to reach the correct conclusion, no wmd's.

     whereas the President of The United States did not.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/02/2007 @ 10:27pm

     Isn't that more a measure of how bad the rest of the news media is than of how good NPR is?

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 01:00am

131. FRB: "Looking at the upper echelons of the Republican Party what you see is a Who's Who of Who Dodged and Then Advocated War."

     Like Clinton?"

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/02/2007 @ 9:52pm

     Are you referring to Clinton studying on his Rhodes scholarship and doing eminently well rather than getting straight C's at Harvard then getting in the national Guard with poppy's help and going on vacation for years?

     Or are you referring to the limited war that Clinton led to put a halt to ethnic cleansing and won with zero American casualties rather than leading a war for oil that America couldn't possibly pull off sucessfully and making so many exactly wrong decisions over and over again that it created ethnic cleansing?

     And let's face the simple facts MAASCH- there are ten times more Vietnam-era upper echelon Republican draft dodgers than on the Democratic side. The lists have been posted here but it seems you prefer to not absorb them.

     And, gee f'n whiz- I wonder why you left out the part about which party it is whose blood sings when they see any opportunity to cut veterans benefits. Right in the middle of one of their damnable wars.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 01:15am

132. Let's make "Swift Luck Greens" famous! What do you think it will take for Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann to get these images featured on their nightly shows and demand an explanation of Michael Chertoff? I want to see national TV news crews there at this location with cameras in hand. We paid for them - Cheney's KBR built them - let's see them on TV! Aren't they proud?

     http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

     Latitude: 41.92 Longitude: -106.521944

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program

     Wikipedia: Civilian Inmate Labor Program

     Prison camps: The regulation also sets forth policy for the creation of prison camps on Army installations. These would be used to keep inmates of the labor programs resident on the installations.

     http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

     Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'

     http://tinyurl.com/y48vxo

     http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/1607403/posts

     Posted by plunger at 01/03/2007 @ 06:27am

133. The Likud Criminal Gang Behind 9/11 and the War on Terror

     by Christopher Bollyn 23 December 2006

     http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Olmert-23Dec2006.html

     Posted by plunger at 01/03/2007 @ 06:27am

134. America's Red Ink

     Sunday, December 24, 2006; Page B06

     The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity's total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.

     If this announcement related to a private company, the news would have been on the front page of major newspapers. Unfortunately, such was not the case -- even though the entity is the U.S. government.

     To put the figures in perspective, $50 trillion is $440,000 per American household and is more than nine times as much as the median household income.

     But at least we have FAMILY Concentration Camps for Hard Labor on US Soil!

     How did you think the Banksters expected you to pay back all that debt?

     The Oligarchs are running both the Banks and the Government - therefore it will be the Government who enforces your repayment of that mortgage debt you've accumulated - through your slave labor.

     Cheney's KBR built them - let's see them on TV! Aren't they proud?

     http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

     Latitude: 41.92 Longitude: -106.521944

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program

     Wikipedia: Civilian Inmate Labor Program

     Prison camps: The regulation also sets forth policy for the creation of prison camps on Army installations. These would be used to keep inmates of the labor programs resident on the installations.

     http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

     Posted by plunger at 01/03/2007 @ 07:40am

135. Okay THIS is off-topic (atleast here)....and sooooooooo bad...

     but hilarious [uncyclopedia.org]!

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 09:37am

136. Isn't that more a measure of how bad the rest of the news media is than of how good NPR is?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007 @ 01:00am

     sure, but it still means they are better. And that flies in the face of "some" who think NPR has no right to exist. Gotta love that.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2007 @ 09:51am

137. -Sorry your war didn't work out, kisses!

     Posted by MADLIB 01/03/2007 @ 04:51am

     HAR!!

     -Big words from a little man.

     Posted by MADLIB 01/03/2007 @ 04:22am

     word on the web is John ain't so little.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2007 @ 09:52am

138. OIL FOR GREED, US style. Time to go to war, boys. Reason # 32 we need to invade Iraq, er Washington.

     By Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times

     Saturday 30 December 2006

     Washington - The Justice Department is investigating whether the director of a multibillion-dollar oil-trading program at the Interior Department has been paid as a consultant for oil companies hoping for contracts.

     The director of the program and three subordinates, all based in Denver, have been transferred to different jobs and have been ordered to cease all contacts with the oil industry until the investigation is completed some time next spring, according to officials involved.

     The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation had not been announced publicly, said investigators were worried that senior government officials had been steering huge oil-trading contracts to favored companies.

     Any such favoritism would probably reduce the money that the federal government receives on nearly $4 billion worth of oil and gas, because it would reduce competition among companies that compete to sell the fuel on behalf of the government.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/washington/30royalty.html?_r=1&em&ex=1 167627600&en=bb019ac11104cbce&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2007 @ 09:56am

139. From a truthout article:

     Reverend Joy A. Bergfalk, of Life Listening Resources at Labyrinth House in Rochester, N.Y., wrote, "We progressives ... do not have the finances of the Religious Right. We do not have Big Business and Sun Myung Moon to back us, and the oil industry is certainly not with us. That kind of money goes to those who will let the corporate world take over America. Plus, we tend to try to use our finances to change the world by helping it."

     She added, "And we are speaking out in churches and from the pulpits. I think my parishioners now realize that Muslims and Christians worship the same God by different names." And she closed with, "We may not be as obnoxious and flamboyant as the Religious Right, but we are here and active. Maybe if people would quit leaving the church in reaction to right wingers, the church would be a stronger force for change in our world."

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2007 @ 10:03am

140. Isn't that more a measure of how bad the rest of the news media is than of how good NPR is?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007 @ 01:00am

     sure, but it still means they are better. And that flies in the face of "some" who think NPR has no right to exist. Gotta love that.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/03/2007 @ 09:51am

     NPR has a right to exist. I just don't think it's a very good source of information even if it is a better source of information than the worst sources in the world.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 11:32am

141. -Big words from a little man.

     Posted by MADLIB 01/03/2007 @ 04:22am

     word on the web is John ain't so little.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/03/2007 @ 09:52am

     It's mostly gas, though, isn't it?

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 11:34am

142. NPR has a right to exist. I just don't think it's a very good source of information even if it is a better source of information than the worst sources in the world.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007 @ 11:32am | ignore this person

     so what do you suggest?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 11:40am

143. Madlib,

     "So much anger and contempt on your part, and to think, I wasn't even speaking to you.

     Big words from a little man."

     when posting publicly you ARE speaking to everyone who reads it...

     and yes, there might be some big words here...stop licking FROMHAMMAS balls and write something worth reading...don't worry, we have a seat for you inthe kook section, but you haven't earned a row assigment yet...

     and no, no anger or contempt, just astonishment at times...surprise me..but,

     this.. "Did you personally think of this war, before actually starting the war anyway, as being a huge disgusting mistake? I know I did, and I know plenty of smart people who did, and not to mention the 50 million odd people who voted against the chimp in '04."

     ah, brilliant repose this ain't ....this is drivel..."I know I did...." JESUS, MATY AND JOSEPH.." Yawn...ZZZZZZZZZZZ...

     this is ball licking...

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 11:41am

144. "It's mostly gas, though, isn't it?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007

     Happy New Year...

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 11:42am

145. I find it troubling that the pres of the united states has an op ed piece in the Wall St journal. he needs another platform? and then at that rag? a most partisan rag it is too, which negates his phony plea for consensus and bi partisanship from the start.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 12:12pm

146. I find it troubling that the pres of the united states has an op ed piece in the Wall St journal. he needs another platform? and then at that rag? a most partisan rag it is too, which negates his phony plea for consensus and bi partisanship from the start.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 12:14pm

147. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/03/2007 @ 12:14am

     JR, not defending Bush, but curious...

     if a Democratic President posted an op-ed on "The Nation" calling for bipartisanship...

     same dismissal by you?

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 12:17pm

148. JR,

     Many who have agreed with much, but not all, of Bush agenda feel the press has been on him from the start, even the WSJ...but it is an opoen society and everyone should be allowed to express their views and opinions on any sheet that is willing to publish it(them)...The NYT is a place, if I were the President, I would never go near nor the MSM, who all have turned into filters for all messages...kinda like after hearing a president, any president, give a speech, the last people I need to tell me what was said, in their words, is Rather,Curic,O'Reilly, Williams,ect....and the same goes for Krugman, who I am sure would put his pie hole on the opposite page......

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 12:24pm

149. Many who have agreed with much, but not all, of Bush agenda feel the press has been on him from the start, even the WSJ..

     this is just absurd, Maasch. no pres in the history of the country was given the kind of support Bush received after 9/11/. the WSJ along with Fox have been his amen corner the entire time of his sad and tragic presidency

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 12:30pm

150. in addition to his op ed piece he gave a brief rose garden speech regurgitating the same points. this guy needs an op ed piece?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 12:31pm

151. JR,

     Ha may or may not need it...he has a right to present his views as many times as there are those willing to print or broadcast them..as do you and I...not that anyone would want to broadcast or print our views...we shouldn't be prohibited as a matter of law...same for presidents...they all do it and they are simply exercising their franchise..our choice is to read or listen to it...or not..

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 12:52pm

152. As far as backing him...his father had 90% backing and ewas fired...he had, what, 80% and his congress was fired..justice done...

     Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 12:53pm

153. Ha may or may not need it...he has a right to present his views as many times as there are those willing to print or broadcast them..as do you and I..

     this is exactly my point. what the pres says gets to be on the front page of nearly every paper, as well as it being shown on every news broadcast. to give him space on the op ed page smacks a little bit of pravda style journalism.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 12:57pm

154. Back on topic momentarily....hehe

     Obviously Mr Corn must think "Time" is...important, else why raise this issue.

     He hasn't written a piece on how Bill Kristol should be "kept off the Diane Rehm news roundup" on NPR (a forum they both participate in)...or that Kristol should lose his slot at "Special Report" on Fox even.

     Apparently though, an editorial position at "Time" is "valuable" enough to Mr Corn, that he feels that Kristol doesn't deserve to be there.

     Reason I mention is...seems the posters here Left and Right have a pretty LOW opinion of "Time" and its relevance....wonder why Mr Corn has a high opinion of it???

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 1:21pm

155. As far as backing him...his father had 90% backing and ewas fired...he had, what, 80% and his congress was fired..justice done...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 12:53am | ignore this person

     this while true is irrelevant to the comment you made about the media being on Bush's case from the start. once in a while it's good to admit that you're wrong, when it's pointed out to you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 1:30pm

156. Mr. Corn, The reason the Neo-cons do not pay a price for lying us into a war is because they are almost all Jewish, and the wars are for Israel. It is that simple.

     Jewish interests run this country - and they are doing what those interests want done. They are indeed a nation within a nation.. and if you guys will call these gophers like Kristol the compund-pronoun they are.. we would all be a lot less confused.

     "Judeocons" is what they are, and who they are.

     Reorient to "Stop the War for Israel"... and perhaps The Nation can do some good. But "The Nation" is owned and edited and written by 'them' as well. The media is the coverup mechanism for this group.. it works for the same interests. Its all really quite impressive....

     Sorry David.. but you are full of it - there was really no reason to write this article.. and if you wrote it with the truth in mind, it would only be a paragraph long.. or it would be about "the power structure of which you do not speak" instead.

     Burn it down. wunb

     Posted by wunb at 01/03/2007 @ 1:45pm

157. Posted by WUNB 01/03/2007 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person

     hey, I know what, let's blame the jews. Bush is a jew, Cheney is a jew, Condi is a jew... you get the picture.

     Israel has little to gain from the Iraq schlamassel. it has made Iran more potent, and that is a bigger threat to Israel than puny Saddam.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 1:56pm

158. Jewish interests run this country . . .

     Posted by WUNB 01/03/2007 @ 1:45pm

     Pro-israel partisans are very influential in America's foreign policy and also any domestic discussion of the Middle East. There are, however, more ardently pro-israel Christian zionists than Jewish zionists.

     On the other hand, the percentage of American Jews who wanted the US to withdraw from Iraq was higher than among the American public at large about a year and a half ago. My bet would be that the percentage of American Jews opposed to the invasion of Iraq before it happened was also higher than among Americans in general. I personally know several who were.

     Not only are you haphazardly conglomerating all Jews into the israel lobby, which is not accurate, you are also attributing to them an influence in areas outside foreign policy and discussion of the Middle East that they don't have. In fact if they did it would be more likely to weaken their influence on foreign policy rather than strengthen it.

     Israel and it's israel lobby here did advocate and push for an American attack on Iraq for many years, successfully. That's a simple fact that can be easily demonstrated. They are now doing everything they possibly can to get us to attack Iran.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 2:34pm

159. Posted by WUNB 01/03/2007 @ 1:45pm

     Virulent anti-Semitism.....and so of course FRB's stinging and outraged response...

     "which is not accurate"--Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007 @ 2:34pm

     anybody surprised?

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 3:07pm

160. Posted by MADLIB 01/03/2007 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person

     let it go, don't make things worse.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 3:09pm

161. "stop licking FROMHAMMAS balls"

     "this is ball licking..."

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     Try to get that off your mind, MAASCH.

     Damn, I'm having trouble ignoring today. I even responded to MASK on the Pat Robertson thread. He got excited as all hell.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 3:14pm

162. My first time here. I can only say it ias alarming to me to see Kristol recieve any further out let for his ideas. To me this points to the credibility rather lack of, for the magazine he will be writing for. His use of discrediting tactics towards others published works with credits adn notes behind them, say volums about his ways of discrediting the work of others. While his works can suffice as just his opinion on the matter. His, "McCarthyism" literary skills are his standard procedure,as was publishied in Center for American Progress April 13, 2006 by Eric Alterman. While Kristol has gotten away with trying to discredit Alterman and others whos writtings deserve much more credibility, to say the very least, to some truth to their published columns and works. Whether one agrees or not with their subject matter, they hold more water than Kristol's glass. If Kristols glass hold water at all, or clean water. Also, in respect to Kristol and PGNC one can only imagine the motivating tactics. His association with the right wing, Bush, his predictions that Bush would and should bomb Iran, can only make one think PGNAC may be alive and well. As far as the next few yrs of this administrations last attemps at what ever they try, you can bet Kristols work will be behind it possibly in every way. The branches of media are always accused of beign to the left so in that respect the right is given a well known voice. While I disagree the media out lets are to the left. To me if they are is only to the left to a point. If they were to the left there would be more towards what the last election was all about for the people of this country. Kristols appointment could also represent, just a more obvious slant to the loss of real voices of democracy through grass roots media work. And a further lunge to large corporation controlled media for corporation controlled America to America controlled merger of the M.E. This is the spin of Kristol and his cronies which include numerous people in power in this administration. On a final note, through this new station in life for Krystol, maybe he will finally be able to show how little diffferance there is left between our two political parties, or at least state in his own standard unfounded literary skills. Because of who he is and what he represents to me, it is very hard to stay on topic as is noted in the ignore list.

     Posted by colorwing at 01/03/2007 @ 5:12pm

163. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 7:30pm | ignore this person

     Rule one, it is our Democracy. Since we own it, it is our responsibility to ensure that it functions, irrespective of what the far left and the far right put out.

     Rule two, never make excuses for your shortcomings. We had been bombing Iraq through THREE PRESIDENTIALS ADMINISTRATIONS: Bush Sr. Bill Clinton, and Bush Jr. prior to the all-out invasion. If Saddam truly had any WMDs, do you really think that he would have allowed us to bomb with impunity for 12 years plus? Get real. Pakistan and India are at a stalemate now because Pakistan did the smart thing, THEY ACTUALLY DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS. India will not dare invade Pakistan now for that reason. This also explains why the United States bombed Iraq back into the stone age and when asked what about North Korea simpy shruggs and changes the subject. U.S. policy has always been to bomb weaker nations that it knows it can defeat (at least thought it could until Iraq) and the stronger nations it runs from. The Vietnam War brought that policy into being. Don't believe me? Check out the list of all the nations that the United States has attacked militarily since the Vietname war and you will see that they are all third world nations commanded by fifth rate tin pot governments defended by tenth rate armies. The only tactics we can not defeat are guerilla tactics, which the Iraqs are employing with precision. But hey, that's life right?

     Rule three, always take what politicans say with a grain of salt. If they are clamoring for war, then greet with skepticism the rationales given for it.

     Posted by POSEIDON at 01/03/2007 @ 5:25pm

164. My first time here. I can only say it is alarming to me to see Kristol recieve any further out let for his ideas. To me this points to the credibility or rather lack of, for the magazine he will be writing for. His use of discrediting tactics towards others published works with credits and notes behind them, say volums about his ways of discrediting the work of others. While his works can suffice as just his opinion on the matter. His, "McCarthyism" literary skills are his standard procedure,as was publishied in Center for American Progress April 13, 2006 by Eric Alterman. While Kristol has gotten away with trying to discredit Alterman and others whos writtings deserve much more credibility, to say the very least, to some truth within their published columns and works. Whether one agrees or not with their subject matter, they hold more water than Kristol's glass. If Kristols glass holds water at all, or clean water. Also, in respect to Kristol and PGNC one can only imagine the motivating tactics. His association with the right wing, Bush, his predictions that Bush would and should bomb Iran, can only make one think PGNAC may be alive and well. As far as the next few yrs of this administrations last attemps at what ever they try, you can bet Kristols work will be behind it in every way. The branches of media are always accused of being to the left so with his new post the right is given a well known voice. While I disagree the media out lets are to the left. To me if they are it is only to the left to a point. New York times new of wire tapping 6 months befor the election adn waited 6 after them to publish. If they were to the left there would be more towards what the last election was all about for the people of this country, much more. Kristols appointment could also represent, just a more obvious slant to the loss of real voices of democracy through grass roots media work. And a further lunge to large corporation controlled media for corporation controlled America to America controlled merger of the M.E. This is the spin of Kristol and his cronies which include numerous people in power in this administration. Kristol discredits the power of the Isreali lobby. I expect since the Bush people cannot get the CIA to find definate info to attack Iran they will use reports from Isreal to support the conflict to bomb Irans nuclear facilities. Through this new station in life for Kristol, maybe he will finally be able to show how little differance there is left between our two political parties, or at least state in his own standard unfounded literary skills. Because of who he is and what he represents to me, it is very hard to stay on topic as is noted in the ignore list. PNAC wants control of the M.E. to control China and Pakistan and India. With dictators, crooked democracys,or bowing kings, as long as they are U.S.friendly and cater to our needs first. Kristol will write to suppress or put down any opposition to those goals. Baby boomers will freek at a U.S. revolt or revolution, all the retirement funds and 401Ks might go broke. This is facism at its best in disguise of democracy, but then thats just my summed up opinion. The democrates do not represent unions nor unions support their working class. Impeachment off the table, they can't be tried for war crimes. I'm sure Kristol would gladly agree. Wonder how the Times feels? Maybe the times are coming for a true left alternative. Woops, guess I'll be on the watch list now.

     Posted by colorwing at 01/03/2007 @ 6:21pm

165. "I know I did, and I know plenty of smart people who did, and not to mention the 50 million odd people who voted against the chimp in '04."

     ah, brilliant repose this ain't ....this is drivel..."I know I did...." JESUS, MATY AND JOSEPH.." Yawn...ZZZZZZZZZZZ...

     this is ball licking...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 11:41am

     Well, John...he was right...and he claims he knew he was being lied to, at the time (as do I).

     What about you? Did you know you were being lied to then? If so, did you simply not care?

     Hmmm...Knowing facts, before you start a war = Ball licking. Dictionarys = useless.... your anti-intellectualism, knows no bounds, does it?

     Perhaps you should learn something (other than how to chant, 'my money, clinton did it too'. Then, somebody might take something you say to be well thought out.

     Simply amazing. (In a morbidly depressing way).

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

     "this is just absurd, Maasch. no pres in the history of the country was given the kind of support Bush received after 9/11/. the WSJ along with Fox have been his amen corner the entire time of his sad and tragic presidency"

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/03/2007 @ 12:30am

     Exactly. But then, consider the source. Everybody's just picking on bush, it's all clintons fault.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2007 @ 8:12pm

166. To "MasK" --

     You miss the point, as do all who shift the responsibilities of governance from We the People -- who are the gov't -- onto gov't.

     It is Congress' role to engage in oversight over the executive -- and, when necessary, conduct aboveboard investigation, then lay out the evidence resulting therefrom publicly.

     It is then the responsibility of We the People -- within the confines of Constitution, law, and reality -- to demand fitting action based upon the evidence.

     Thus it is not Congress' proper role to initiate impeachment on its own -- which is in effect the "taking back" of a vote of We the People. That is why the Clinton impeachment -- in the face of an approval rating for Clinton of over 60 per cent -- was not merely an abuse of power by Congress but also improper, at the least because his "crime" was a non-illegal consesual affair.

     Too many of We the People surrender their responsibilities for governance to the gov't -- then b*tch when that the gov't is beyond the control of We the People.

     To "Plunderer": thanks for the _ad nauseum_ litany of innuendo. We've all seen it elsewhere, time and again, from conspriabunkerers who never ask themselves if they have the qualifications in, as example, arrchitectural engineering, required to make informed judgments about the collapse of the towers.

     Last but not least: were there an actual conspiracy, it would be impossible to see it through the obscuring smoke blown by the anti-gov't/Constitution conspirabunkers who, had they lives, wouldn't have time to imagine up such paranoid fictions.

     Posted by jnagarya at 01/03/2007 @ 8:52pm

167. There is almost hope in this Corn piece.. It is good to see David name bad pundits -- "Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt, Danielle Pletka and others (including non-neocon Thomas Friedman)" -- and point man Wm. Kristol, headed to TIME -- "who blew it on Iraq still regularly appear..."

     However, their glaring point of identity -- Jews -- is not mentioned. But phone calls to Chertoff, Mehlman, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams, Feith, AIPAC, JINSA, PNAC, AEI, CNN, and all the rest of the behind the scenes ADL Zionistas who discredit Jews and Jewry, mock the holocaust, victimizing contented diasporics everywhere...do not go unanswered.

     A coterie has wormed its way into woodwork who cherry pick new that is good for Z Jews, arguing America will be safer if Iran gets nuked. Its not just penance they ought to be doing, but hard time on death row, leading up to hanging by the neck until dead

     Posted by jones at 01/03/2007 @ 9:13pm

168. BWAAAHHHHHH Ha ha Ha ha Ha Ha ha ha

     Maasch is giving lessons on ball licking

     Ha Ha Ha Ha...

     Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2007 @ 9:43pm

169. Posted by JNAGARYA 01/03/2007 @ 8:52pm

     Simple question...open to all. At a 35% approval rate and no demand for impeachment NOW...

     what will "We the People" learn from Congressional inquiries that will flip "us" over to going through a lengthy and un-productive 2007...that ultimately results in "President Cheney"? (Sorry "dual impeachment" very likely to be un-Constitutional!)????

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 10:22pm

170. (Sorry "dual impeachment" very likely to be un-Constitutional!)????

     Posted by MASK 01/03/2007 @ 10:22pm

     You've been saying this for a while. I really don't understand what you mean by "dual impeachment". As I understand the law, individuals are impeached individually. And what part of the constitution addresses "dual impeachment".

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2007 @ 10:33pm

171. You've been saying this for a while. I really don't understand what you mean by "dual impeachment". As I understand the law, individuals are impeached individually. And what part of the constitution addresses "dual impeachment".

     Eric

     Posted by MALCONTENT 01/03/2007 @ 10:33pm

     pssst.... Mal

     Mask will be taking the class on the constitution his sophomore year

     Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2007 @ 10:39pm

172. If there is any justice in this world, people like Bill Kristol will be held responsible for what Bill Hicks called their "tainting of the collective unconscious". I hope the little PNAC boys like Kristol, Pearle, Cheney, etc. spend the rest of their pathetic, natural lives looking over their shoulder...

     If they don't...they certainly SHOULD.

     They should be tried and hanged right along with the likes of Goebbels and Himmler for what they have knowingly done to our country and our world.

     Posted by electrictooth at 01/04/2007 @ 06:37am

173. Posted by WILL C. 01/03/2007 @ 10:39pm

     Hahahahaha....you took a joke I made about you and then made it about me....that's a good 'ern, young feller!

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 11:03am

174. Posted by MALCONTENT 01/03/2007 @ 10:33pm

     Let me explain. It sets up the possibility of violating the Presidential Order of Succession, if Speaker Nancy tries to impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously and doesn't allow "President Cheney" to nominate and get confirmed by the House a new Vice-President...thus making Nancy Prez.

     Such a move would DOUBTLESS be taken to the Supreme Court, where....wait for it....yep...John Roberts, Scalia, all the conservative Justices and probably 1-2 of the "moderates" agree.

     Ergo, Cheney becomes Prez and BEFORE the House and Senate can impeach and remove him, they MUST approve (or deny and allow another candidate) HIS choice for Veep.

     That process (after taking, even by HSUBFOOLS timeline, a YEAR to get rid of Bush) means that the impeachment of Cheney couldn't POSSIBLY start any earlier than Spring 2008...just in time for the Presidential primaries and NO Dem wants to face that AND the possibility of...

     President Condi! being sworn in in the Fall of 2008.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 11:07am

175. This is all moot by the way....as....again, wait for it...

     even insiders on the Left, like David Corn....don't support impeachment!

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 11:08am

176. Where have you seen a current poll on impeachment, Mask? The last poll I saw taken about impeachment was before the elections and 52% thought that IF Bush had done anything against the law, that impeachment investigations should commence. In the absence of more recent data, I feel obliged to point out to you that 52% is a majority.

     And every argument can be made for the idea that a charged vice president (at least until he is found innocent or guilty) forfeits the privilege of choosing a successor.

     Posted by brantl at 01/04/2007 @ 3:22pm

177. Where have you seen a relatively current poll on impeachment, Mask? The last poll I saw taken about impeachment was before the elections (September, I think) and 52% thought that IF Bush had done anything against the law, that impeachment investigations should commence. In the absence of more recent data, I feel obliged to point out to you that 52% is a majority.

     And every argument can be made for the idea that a charged vice president (at least until he is found innocent or guilty) forfeits the privilege of choosing a successor.

     Posted by brantl at 01/04/2007 @ 3:28pm

178. Posted by BRANTL 01/04/2007 @ 3:28pm

     Zogby Poll, right?...or was it one of the MSNBC "online...hit the 'yes' button as many times as you like" polls?

     The first has NEVER been corroborated by ANY other polling company....Harris, Gallup, Quinnipiac.....the second?...well, if you believe "online polls", I got one that shows that 95% of guys playing "World of Warcraft" feel that they'd make a "good boyfriend" for Christina Aguilera.

     If there was hard, strong polling showing favorability for impeachment...."The Nation", HuffPost...heck, CNN, the networks would be SCREAMING it. But there isn't.

     As for the "argument can be made for the idea that a charged vice president (at least until he is found innocent or guilty) forfeits the privilege of choosing a successor"...read the 25th Amendment and find it.

     Then take it to the JOHN ROBERTS/Scalia/Thomas/Alito...probably Souter and Kennedy...Supreme Court and tell them you "found it in there".

     While you're at it....tell me the EXACT procedure and VOTE TALLY needed by the US Senate to remove a President from office. Oh, and speaking of John Roberts....guess who PRESIDES over the trial?

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 4:18pm

179. Pelosi stated that impeachment is off the table. And the Pentagon is ready to take on any public signs of discontent. In Rumsfields budget he has alotted for the military to be trained for domestic violence. After Katrina and all the national gaurd over seas. The would socialist site predicted with warning, that aritcles from the Wall Street were saying that a cue was in order in Bagdad. Democracy is out, control and silence is in. Arabs are ready to help the Sunni gain control back, theres further escalation, they keep groping for ways to implicate Iran, (recent arrests suspects,Iranian). Bush has another speech to to come, very soon. There will be further blood baths with the Democratic congress to bipartisanly send in more troops. They won't be coming home to roost any time soon. It's still nice to know how the people feel, from the election, that they can plan better. They still have two other power changes to take down. With 50000 foriegn troops in Lebanon, none of which fail to recognise Isreal as a independant state, as per Isreals request. Lebanon is under closed control. If Lebanon (Hezbola), damages a foiegn soldiers head in conflict, that country is in. Recent visits by Bush, Cheney, Rice, to Saudis, Jordan, with personal instructions to Maliki to get the violence down, LOL. The stage is nearly set. Saudi Arabia has been loading up on warfare. While those countrys are dictator controled they are also SUNNI, as was Bin Ladin. A Shiete blood bath would not be hard to ignite. What would Iran do if not pulled in by what ever Irag conflict they fix up. Are they arrogant enough to just bomb Irans facilities. CIA reports have failed, again, to support the white houses claims on Irans neuclear intent. Israeli secret service has other words to say to the contrary. The goverments USA, and Europe just need to make sure they pull the publics support in, suppress liberals domestic antiwar out cry. Nato is being replace with the world stock market, like Bush says, go out and spend your money. Give more tax breaks to who and charge and pay for the escalation with a credit card, that the people will pay for. Developed nations do not want to loose out on energy spoils or the economic growth the stock market has been spoiling them with. While the public in Europe have protested the war and dislike U.S. policy, their goverments have been falling inline behind U.S. wishes, even in the manipulated U.N. Where a few have tried to speak out, but only to be demonised by national press reports, even though many countries stood up in support of the deviled words that were spoken. I watched the CNN report on th U.N. and the reporter asked, "if that was clapping that was herd in the background". So Kristol is just another voice to attempt to drown out the truth. It might be of consequence to see what a couple of problematic players might or be willing to do. Putins telephone call to Bush for a go ahead on a U.N. vote for further sanctions on Iran, may be saying more. That leaves China with a playing card. The cards are pretty well stacked. Seems more comparisons are always with WWII, but have read pre WWI fits more closely, could it matter? Pat Robertson predicts an attack on U.S. with in the yr. Well, I connect the dots, he said God has spoken to him. As once said toward Kristols fathers tactics, Have they no shame?

     Posted by colorwing at 01/04/2007 @ 5:36pm

180. The sad truth is that all the people in any position of power in the media bought the Bush Iraq lies, hook line and sinker, and to get rid of Kristol would be admitting they were just as wrong as he is. So, what happens instead is that they all pretend the awkward facts never happened. Maybe the truth will be embraced when all the people with power who have something to lose have retired, but I would not hold my breath.

     Posted by macrumpton at 01/04/2007 @ 9:56pm

181. "Thus it is not Congress' proper role to initiate impeachment on its own -- which is in effect the "taking back" of a vote of We the People.

     What??! Where did you learn that from? It's always been the role of Congress to initiate those very proceedings (it starts in the house and ends in the senate). I'm so sorry you got a public school education. They don't teach much there...

     "That is why the Clinton impeachment -- in the face of an approval rating for Clinton of over 60 per cent -- was not merely an abuse of power by Congress but also improper, at the least because his "crime" was a non-illegal consesual affair."

     Posted by JNAGARYA 01/03/2007 @ 8:52pm

     Oh, I know you got a raw deal in public school. In case the teacher didn't mention it, Clinton got impeached for "perjury". ya know, lying to a Federal Grand Jury...or did they tell you lying under oath is OK??

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2007 @ 11:34pm

182. Posted by COLORWING 01/04/2007 @ 5:36pm

     CW, piece of advice....hit the "Enter key" at the end of every few sentences.

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 09:34am

183. Posted by ACOOK 01/04/2007 @ 11:34pm

     AC you AND JNAGARYA are both right and wrong.

     Clinton was impeached for perjury...but the public PERCEPTION was that it was "over a consensual sexual affair". And that's why it failed in the Senate.

     I opposed the impeachment (thought censure should have been enough)....but unlike other "Clinton defenders" I realize that it was over perjury, and not that "he was impeached for having an affair". Lotta of those on the Left lose that argument when they try to make that case.

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 09:37am

184. We are all awaiting the mea cupla that will never come.

     Just think about it, what member of the Bush administration or the conservative press will stand to lose anything from this war? Bush will get paid 500k or a million a speech after he leaves office. Cheney will go back to Haliburton. Kristol gets a plum over at Time. Not a one will hurt in any way because they are the insiders. They own "the game."

     Ladies and Gentlemen, you are looking right at the oligarchy. Don't ever let them make you believe they are "outsiders." It reminds me of a line from the movie "The Good Shepherd". . . "We have the United States. The rest of you are just visiting."

     Posted by hhemwm at 01/06/2007 @ 09:15am

185. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/02/2007 @ 7:43pm | ignore this person

     You keep making the case that the people should form their ideas and opinions based on what the media tells them. That is not only flat out wrong, but extremely dangerous in my view. People have to learn to think for themselves, regardless of what they are told and spoon-fed. That is the true bedrock of a Democratic Republic, a population that thinks for itself. Take Howard Dean's statement by itself, no media or political class spin, and you will know it to be a truthful one, regardless of what others may say or think.

     Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 7:25pm

186. George Orwell explained this phenomenon for you decades ago, Mr. Corn, when he wrote in "Notes on Nationalism":

     "Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts, but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties."

     In light of this timeless wisdom, I suggest that you stop referring to the above-named frauds as "commentators" but instead more accurately label them "nationalistic loyalty-stimulators." Then, look to identify "their more devoted followers" whose atavistic urge to consume brand-name "loyalty beyond reason" explains why America, the notorious Nation of Sheep, has again allowed those wielding the semantic cattle-prod of unexamined symbolism to stampede them "surging" over the edge of a cliff yet again.

     Here ends the lesson on rhetorical "escalation."

     Posted by Michael Murry at 01/07/2007 @ 8:51pm