Too Few Troops From the April 26, 2004 issue: Resolve alone won't bring success. We need a military and political strategy that maximizes our odds of winning in Iraq. by Robert Kagan and William Kristol 04/26/2004, Volume 009, Issue 31   AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE Tuesday night, President Bush eloquently made the case for staying the course in Iraq. The next day, at City College in New York, Senator Kerry agreed: "It would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America" to cut and run, and to "leave a failed Iraq in its wake." And the American people, despite the recent bad news, show no sign of panic: In a Time/CNN poll, 57 percent of respondents agree that the United States should "intensify" its military effort in Iraq. Unfortunately, resolve alone won't bring success. Neither will well-delivered statements by the president. The problem in Iraq is not poor public relations, or a lack of will. Rather, it is the failure of policymakers at the highest levels to fashion a military and political strategy that maximizes the odds of success. That is what has been missing ever since Saddam's statue fell a little over a year ago. The mere fact that violence has increased recently in Iraq is not by itself grounds for criticizing the administration's handling of the war. No sensible person believed that the effort to build a democratic Iraq would be without cost and dangers. No reasonable person expected administration officials and military commanders, either in Washington or in Baghdad, to be able to exercise unerring mastery over an inherently complex and always explosive situation. Nor is the news from Iraq all bad. Several weeks ago we argued optimistically (perhaps too optimistically) that things were looking better, and we still believe there is much in Iraq to be gratified by: continued peaceful cooperation among Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders, despite many disagreements; an economy that seems to be improving; the fact that a large majority of Iraqis, as documented in polls, say their future is promising, reject political violence, and support an ongoing American presence. And much of Iraq remains, at the moment, relatively peaceful. All this is important progress. Yet this progress can be undone. And while we certainly do not hold the administration responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq, it is clear that there have been failures in planning and in execution, failures that have been evident for most of the last year. Serious errors have been made--and made, above all, by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The recent violence in Iraq has confirmed that the level of American military forces has been too low to accomplish the president's mission ever since the invasion phase of the war ended last April. On Thursday, the secretary of defense announced a three-month extension in tours of duty for about 20,000 troops in Iraq. This did not increase the number of troops on the ground, but it did undo a planned drawdown in military strength from 135,000 to 115,000, thereby maintaining current combat strength. But leaving 20,000 troops in Iraq for an additional three months will almost certainly not be enough. Close observers of the conflict in Iraq, civilian and military alike (military, of course, speaking off the record), say that at least two additional divisions--at least 30,000 extra troops--are needed in Iraq just to deal with the current crisis. Even more troops may well be needed to fully pacify the country. And it would be useful to have as many of those troops as possible there sooner rather than later. The shortage of troops in Iraq is the product of a string of bad calculations and a hefty dose of wishful thinking. Above all, it is the product of Rumsfeld's fixation on high-tech military "transformation," his hostility to manpower-intensive nation-building in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and his refusal to increase the overall size of the military in the first place. The results are plain to see: We are trying to carry out Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy with Clinton's pre-9/11 military. It is a wonderful military, but it is too small for our responsibilities in the post-9/11 world. As a result, it will not be easy to find the additional brigades to send to Iraq. Troubling reductions in our deployments elsewhere will be required, and an already stressed military will be asked to do more still. Unfortunately, there is no choice.   It didn't have to be this way. Back in August 2003, it was already clear that by early spring of 2004 there would be a shortage of forces to maintain stability and security in Iraq. Neither the military commanders in Iraq nor Rumsfeld pretended otherwise. But rather than prepare to increase American forces, Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid, the U.S. commander in the region, searched for stopgaps. One was the John Kerry solution: more foreign troops. Pentagon plans last fall called for the introduction of an additional international division on top of the one currently led by Poland. That second international division never materialized. The second proposed fix was to build an Iraqi security force capable of filling the gap. Original plans to build a force of 50,000-100,000 within a year were scrapped as too modest. By October, Rumsfeld boasted that up to 200,000 Iraqi forces would be available in a matter of months. In order to accomplish this feat, training schedules were radically shortened, and procedures for vetting Iraqi soldiers and police were loosened. Critics, including this magazine, warned that this hasty assembling of an Iraqi force carried significant risks: Either they would not be capable of fighting in the time allotted, or they would be unreliable. Both unfortunately turned out to be the case. General Abizaid now acknowledges that the Iraqi forces have proved a "big disappointment." Many would not fight during the recent violence. Some even defected to the other side. So the present shortage of troops in Iraq is not a surprise. It was predictable. Without the hoped-for second international division and without a usable force of Iraqis, security in Iraq has fallen almost entirely to an American force too small to handle the job. The stresses we're under now cannot be chalked up to the "fog of war" or simple bad luck. Last September General Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq, was asked if he had enough troops. He responded that he would not have enough to handle a new wave of conflict in Iraq. "If a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt," he told reporters in Baghdad, " . . . that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for." Eight months later, that conflict erupted, and, sure enough, there weren't enough troops to handle it. We need to fix the situation. It would of course have been better to have planned for higher force levels from the beginning, rather than to have to scramble now, calling forces back from well-earned leaves and disrupting rotations. Had the proper number of forces been in place in Iraq from the beginning, some of the recent violence might have been deterred, or suppressed more speedily. Had the proper number of forces been in place, the military would have been able to act more aggressively and thoroughly to disarm, pacify, and secure Iraq. Instead, we tried to keep a lid on things, while terrorists became better organized and militias became stronger. Had the proper number of forces been in place early on, the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's infrastructure might have been stopped, munition dumps could have been secured, economic reconstruction would have moved ahead more easily, and more men and resources could have been devoted to the training of Iraqi soldiers. Perhaps we could even have reduced infiltration from Iran, lessening Tehran's ability to stir up trouble in the south. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld famously talks about preparing for the "unknown unknowns." Yet the present crisis was hardly unforeseeable, and Rumsfeld did not ensure that the military was prepared to deal with it. He failed to put in place in Iraq a force big enough to handle the challenges at hand. That is a significant failure, and we do not yet know the price that will be paid for it. The question is whether Rumsfeld and his generals have learned from past mistakes. Or rather, perhaps, the question is whether George W. Bush has learned from Rumsfeld's past mistakes. After all, at the end of the day, it is up to the president to ensure that the success he demands in Iraq will in fact be accomplished. If his current secretary of defense cannot make the adjustments that are necessary, the president should find one who will. --Robert Kagan and William Kristol      source...

By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN

April 18, 2004 -- A decade after her health-care initiative went down in flames, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has again placed herself squarely in the middle of the debate - penning a lengthy magazine article on the future of what she calls a "seriously flawed" system. New York's junior senator mixes self-effacing humor with frightening scenarios as she pushes fellow legislators to consider wide-ranging reforms for a system that has left nearly 44 million people without coverage.

Clinton's cover-page opus is the main story of The New York Times Magazine's annual medicine issue, its cover line, "Now are we Ready to Talk About Health Care?"

She opens the piece by joking: "I know what you're thinking. Hillary Clinton and health care? Been there. Didn't do that."

But the former first lady's humor doesn't last long. Asserting that the health-care system has declined even further since she first proposed giving Americans universal coverage in 1994, she makes some new proposals and repeats old ones, including health care for all children and all who are in poverty.

Name:

HILLARY SUPPORTER

Message:
Clinton: New Overtime Provisions Not Enough to Protect America's Workers

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized the Bush Administration's revised overtime regulations released today as smoke and mirrors designed to shortchange America's workers.

"I am dubious of this proposal. American Workers should not allow a tiny amount of progress to distract them from the fact that this Administration remains indifferent to their rights," Senator Clinton said. "While the Administration's revised proposals are heading in the right direction, they still leaving millions of American workers in danger of losing their overtime, which is unacceptable."

"The 40 hour workweek was established to protect workers from unscrupulous employers," said Senator Clinton. "If this basic protection is eroded, not only will our workers suffer, their families and their communities will too as employees are forced to work longer hours with no additional pay," said Senator Clinton.

The Administration's rule carves out certain groups, including first responders and nurses, for protection while leaving others at risk of losing their overtime eligibility. "I want to ensure that all workers currently eligible for overtime pay keep that protection," said Senator Clinton. "The Bush Administration should not be picking and choosing among workers," she said.

For those receiving overtime pay, it represents 25 percent of their annual income on average.

The Administration's rule also raises the minimum salary under which workers would automatically qualify for overtime. In the Administration's first proposal, the level was set at $22,100. The final regulation raises it to $23,660. This increase is an improvement, but if the threshold, which was last adjusted in 1975, were adjusted for inflation it would be $31,720 today.

Senator Clinton has fought hard to stop the Department of Labor's overtime new regulations from going into effect. Last year she co-sponsored legislation with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), which was approved by the Senate, to halt the provisions and protect overtime for 8 million Americans, including 450,000 New Yorkers by preventing the Department from implementing any legislation that would deny any individual the right to receive overtime pay if they are eligible for such pay today.

In July, Senator Clinton also co-sponsored the Overtime Compensation Protection Act of 2003 with Senator Kennedy (D-MA), which would make it illegal for the Secretary of Labor to promulgate any regulation that excludes any employee who is currently eligible to receive overtime compensation from such eligibility.

Senator Clinton has also criticized the Department of Labor's regulation that would slash overtime pay for millions of American workers. At a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing last year, Senator Clinton questioned Acting Solicitor of Labor Howard M. Radzely about the Department of Labor's proposed cuts to overtime pay.

Name:	Crawford Livestock Commission
To:	Rooty Toot
Re:	Gov. Perry growing Donkey ears?

In response to:
Democrats don't like "sin taxes"? The hell they don't!!

Message:
Ever hear of the "Tobacco Settlement", Bosco?

FYI, Democrats like any and all taxes, and Rick Perry is going to get plenty of Democrat support for his "sin tax" play.

Rick Perry is out to raise taxes, and this "sin tax" gambit is just a replay of Ann Richard's great gift to the gullible: the "LOTTO". The new "sin taxes" will no more satisfy the bottomless greed of the educrats than did the "Lotto".

Name:	Karl
To:	Helpless Masses

In response to:
Senator Tom Harkin

Message:
Tom Harkin is a damned good Communist!

Name:	Internal Revenue Service
To:	Lumpen Proletariat
Re:	MMMMM, GOOD!! Burrrrrp!

In response to:
OVERTIME PAY

Message:
We just LOVE that OVERTIME PAY! It's delicious with regular wages, tips, and just about any other income!

Name:	Gary Aldrich
Re:	Kerry out of gas?

Message:
Bloggers are often accused of trolling through headlines for material, but maybe now we can make the same claim of presidential candidates.

On March 30, Senator John Kerry heard a rising complaint about high gasoline prices while campaigning in Wisconsin. Making a quick political calculation, he joined the chorus.

Kerry promptly blamed President Bush, chastising him for not dealing better with the Saudis to force lower prices for crude oil. Kerry then suggested Bush not restore the oil reserves Bill Clinton tapped into, when Clinton and Gore tried to control oil prices.

Kerry claimed he would somehow manage gasoline prices if elected President. And he certainly would; just not the same way our more gullible citizens imagine: Kerry would make gas prices soar, as he supports gas tax increases every chance he gets!

Nobody likes high gasoline prices unless they are a Liberal like John Kerry. His ilk consistently complains that gas prices in the U.S. are too LOW, encouraging people to drive more than environmentalists think they should.

These same Liberals always seem to know what’s best for us.

For instance, they not only want to tell you how much you should pay for a gallon of gasoline, they also want to tell you what kind of car you can drive. They even want to tell you how fast you can drive the automobile they think you should own. Remember the nationwide, 55 mile-per-hour laws they passed? They tried to prevent you from ruining the earth by making you drive slower on the highway.

Liberals like Kerry are perpetually obnoxious busybodies, but put them in a position of power and they become downright dangerous. The last time a guy like Kerry occupied the White House, we ran out of gasoline. Remember the long gas lines of the late 1970s? I’ve got an idea: let’s not go back to those bad old days of Jimmy Carter!

But no sooner did Kerry make his silly, untrue claims about President Bush’s actions with regard to Saudi oil, than Bob Woodward released a book accusing President Bush of fashioning “secret” plans to lower oil prices before the November election. Forgetting his earlier attacks about President Bush not doing enough to lower gasoline prices, Kerry complained that President Bush ought not to try lowering gasoline prices because he would give the Saudis an influence in our national election!

Can someone please explain to Senator Kerry how President Bush’s effort to keep oil prices down actually protects everyone’s best interests (except Liberals, of course)? Could Kerry possibly understand that any positive news for our country will benefit President Bush politically?

We can’t stop the world until November so John Kerry can get an issue going for his floundering campaign. He’ll just have to try to keep up.

The seemingly hapless John Kerry cannot decide where he stands on yet another issue. First he wants higher prices, then flips-flops and says he does not want higher gasoline prices. He later decides he does want high prices – if a lower price benefits President Bush’s chances for re-election.

Kerry just wants the White House, and apparently he’ll say anything to get the job.

Saying anything is the same as saying nothing. Let me say something: This is shaping up to be a particularly boring presidential campaign, and should be an easy win for President Bush, given his competition.

Name:

The American People

In response to:
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized the Bush Administration's revised overtime regulations released today as smoke and mirrors designed to shortchange America's workers.

Message:
...and we all know Hillary Clinton is a "smoke and mirrors" expert.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
But at the same time, inflation for the most part remained tame, especially in the all-important area of wages, Greenspan said. He attributed this in large part to the long period of weak job creation the economy has endured. Even with a pickup in hiring in recent months, the average duration of unemployment in March was 20 weeks — nearly double the 12 weeks of September 2000.

Message:
What Bush has done to economy is criminal. He should be held accountable. I hope he is.

Name:	LMFAO!
To:	Individual
Re:	Amazing Stupidity

In response to:
"...What Bush has done to economy is criminal. He should be held accountable. I hope he is...."

Message:
Accountable… You do not even know what that word means, miracle boy!

Name:	Bill Clinton
Re:	How to Spot an Easy Girl

Message:
Getting laid can be tough. Well, its not that tough, if you have money, power, fame, or you are a d!ckhead. Another advantage you can use is the ability to spot an easy girl. Maybe your problem is that you're shooting for the wrong one, and that's why you are still coming home empty handed. Here's a little guide.

1. Burgundy Dye Jobs

This one should be fairly obvious. Any girl over 20 doesn't have naturally blonde hair. But blonde isn't what you should be looking for. Red hair, or "burgundy" hair, is a dead giveaway. No woman has natural Burgundy hair. Here is one thing I bet you've failed to notice. When a woman is going thru some sort of crisis, where she needs extra attention, what color does she dye her hair? When she gets a divorce, gains some weight, or her man leaves her for a younger chick, what color is it? Burgundy.

Note The Hair Color

As you go out into the field, keep the burgundy hair in mind. Apply this principle: if the hair is burgundy, pay attention to her. Feed her the attention she needs, and 95% of the time, you'll get what you want.

2. Hats

Lets face it. Its not raining in the bar, and the sun is nowhere near your eyes. So why in the hell would a chick wear a hat in the bar? Women use their hair as their power to attract men, so why would they cover it up? Simply to get an advantage in the attention market. Also, if they steal your hat, and put it on, you got a key to her poon. And remember: roofies. Attention is the drug you use to get laid.

While it seems silly, attention is a very powerful tool that guys use half heartedly. Don't. Use it to your extreme advantage, because most single chicks in bars are there for attention and attention only. Get them drunk on it, and they will have no choice but to go home with you and get the most attention possible. And the only reason women wear hats in bars is to get attention.

3. Fake Tanning

This one should be fairly obvious. Everyone knows a fake tan when they see it. So why do girls go tanning if everyone knows its fake, and just says "FAKE BAKE" when she walks by? Because any attention is good attention. See the theme here?

Again, usually when women are going through a crisis, or they have been recently dumped/divorced, they fake tan. This is your window of opportunity boys. Club girls like to tan as well, for an extra edge, they know its fake, you know its fake, but they stand out. And that's the point. And men, never go tanning. If you don't have psoriasis or some other medical reason for doing it, tanning is gay. That's a rule.

4. Excessive Smoking

While its no fun to kiss an ashtray, you must remember you are trying to get laid. If you are a smoker, its no big deal, but if you aren't, just keep your end goal in mind. Excessive smoking is a great indicator of easyness. It says two things: she's smoking for attention (that word comes up a lot, doesn't it?) and also: she takes things to excess. And when they want attention to excess, they sleep with you. Trust me.

If she wont put down her cigarette to dance, or kiss someone, or you haven't seen her all night without one, you're in like flint. Watch for it.

5. Fake Bisexuality

In reference to the picture above, fake bisexuality is a good ticket in. There is only one reason girls kiss at a bar or club. The same reason they dance sexy with each other there. Attention from men. If a girl shouts at the top of her lungs that she's bisexual, take note. If she says she's "bi-curious" the same applies.

The only real bisexuals in these places are usually strippers. They like sex with women because they hate men, but they will have sex with men to pay for jewelry and their kids. It may not be pretty, but its the truth. If a woman is not a stripper but claims to be bisexual, chances are she's looking for attention, and you have a whole bag of it.

6. Stupid Clothes

This one is pretty obvious. Why wear trendy ridiculous clothing? You guessed it. Women sense desperation, and while it is a turn off for them, you should develop this sense to your advantage. And nothing says desperation for attention like stupid looking clothes.

Our natural instinct is to be intimidated by women who are really flashy. Start thinking different. If a woman is hot, but dressed like this, she's crying on the inside, and you need to use this to your advantage. If she's not so hot, than at least you can keep her on the back burner till 2am and take her home. Its a simple game, but one you must play.

Summary

I hope you've learned something here. Die Hard players already know this stuff, but there could be something in here you've overlooked. I bolded some of the rules, but here is a list.

If the hair is burgundy, pay attention to her.

roofies. Attention is the drug you use to get laid.

The only reason women wear hats in bars is to get attention.

Any attention is good attention.

Tanning is gay.

Watch for excessive smoking.

There is only one reason girls kiss at a bar or club.

Nothing says desperation for attention like stupid looking clothes.

Keep these rules in mind. Print out this page and take it with you. If you are looking for a wife, use these rules for the women to avoid. If you are looking for some meaningless sex, memorize them. The number one rule is: Women love attention. The only thing you need to figure out, is how to make your attention valuable to them.

_________________ If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man. -Mark Twain

Name:

XYZ

In response to:
What Bush has done to economy is criminal. He should be held accountable. I hope he is.

Message:
Thank you, President Bush, for rescuing us from the Clinton/Gore recession.

Name:	Dr. Art
To:	individual

In response to:
I hope he is.

Message:
I hope you get a job soon.

Name:

Slimmerson 2M's

Message:

Will Democrats actually vote for a man like John (gigilo) Kerry? I will admit this man must have something he is not showing us, but it has nothing to do with running a country.

---

Oh, did I mention I served in Vietnam?

Name:	Talkmaster
Re:	Kerry implosion

Message:
John Kerry is out of gas. He is getting desperate. Is there anything The Poodle won't say to get elected?

Name:	The American People
To:	SPINdividual

In response to:
What Bush has done to economy is criminal. He should be held accountable. I hope he is.

Message:
Yeah, we are hitting 20 year economic growth records...criminal ain't it (only if you are a Democrats trying to get elected)

Name:

Bush Democrat

Message:
John Kerry and his minions are running into brick walls everywhere they go. The economy? That dog won't hunt... we're getting stronger everyday.

The war on terrorists? Sorry. That's going well, too, despite what Tom Brokaw is trying to spin.

Iraq? According to those who are actually there (not John Kerry) we're are kicking some extremist butt. That's working great.

The Democrat party is going off the deep end and many are looking to cast their vote OUTSIDE the party... for President Bush! Thousands of Democrats are switching to Bush, just like thousands did for Reagan.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004!

Name:

HaHa

Message:

Name:	Go Sick Her You Baby Killers
Re:	Top

Message:
If the draft must be reinstated, then either as many married people as singles must be drafted or the draft age should be lowered to 13.

Name:	Kyle E
To:	Bill Clinton

In response to:
As you go out into the field, keep the burgundy hair in mind. Apply this principle: if the hair is burgundy, pay attention to her. Feed her the attention she needs, and 95% of the time, you'll get what you want.

Message:
95%?

That's bush league stats, Bingo

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Iraq? According to those who are actually there (not John Kerry) we're are kicking some extremist butt. That's working great.

Message:
Yeh. Chaos now and a bunch of religious flakes in control later on. Wow. Such a deal.

Name:

Mr.T

Message:
John Kerry Still Sucks!

Name:

Why John Kerry will never be President

Message:

Kerry Sandbagged Into Releasing Bad Performance Report From Navy Service In Vietnam.

John Kerry has just released his "Officer's Fitness Report" from his service in Vietnam. Kerry officials, with no knowledge of military operations, think the report is laudatory. In reality, it is disasterous.

Back in the Vietnam days, officers’ ratings were vastly inflated. To even be considered for promotion or a better assignment, an officer needed top grades in all categories. For example, in his book Colin Powell described how a dispute between his wife and his division commander’s wife led to one mark in one category out of 14 being less than perfect, and how, until it was corrected by a general further up the chain of command, it would have stopped Powell at one star.

Back then, the verbal descriptions of an officer’s service were always laudatory, and virtually meaningless. Many raters used standard paragraphs to describe every subordinate from a future member of the Joint Chiefs to “Beatle Bailey with gold bars” in glowing terms.

The actual rating was effectively “coded” into the comparative section. There a Navy officer was rated in 16 categories such as “Loyalty,” Judgment,” “Courage,” Personal Behavior,” etc. Each officer would receive one of nine rankings, ranging from “Exceptional” to “One of the Top Few,” “Above the Majority,” down to “Unsatisfactory” in each of those 16 categories. Anything less than perfect in any of the 16 categories was a clear indication of an undesirable officer.

Remember, these rankings were highly inflated, with at least 60% of the officers having perfect rankings in all 16 categories. Most of the others would receive one ranking less than perfect in one category…. and their careers were effectively over.

Lt. Kerry received only 6 of 16 rankings in the highest category. The remaining marks for “Judgment” was one step down and 9 of the 16 other marks were two steps down. When ranking these Efficiency Reports arithmetically, when one “down point” could end a career, Kerry had 19 “down points.”

Is there any wonder why the Navy had no objection to his early return from Vietnam and his subsequent early removal from the service. They wanted him away from the guns, where he couldn’t hurt Americans.

The Kerry Clowns tell us their man is fit to run the military and protect us. They are proven wrong for at least three reasons:

1. Kerry’s prior anti-US statements shown to be lies.

2. Kerry’s poor military performance, as shown in this report released today.

3. The lack of the senior staff’s knowledge as to what this report really means, and how it further diminishes his campaign…. and his stature, such as it is.

Name:

Kego

Message:
Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry [whew!], was born in Mozambique, the daughter of a Portuguese physician, and was educated in Switzerland and South Africa. Fluent in five languages, she was working as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva in the mid-60's when she met a handsome young American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank in Geneva. He told her his family was "in the food business."

They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh where his family ran the giant H.J. Heinz food company. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of three terms in the United States Senate.

Senator H. John Heinz was a friend of mine - not a close friend, not a golfing buddy, but a friend nonetheless. The last time I saw him alive was, oddly enough, in the men's restroom at the Maverick Steakhouse, a favorite nighttime eatery and watering hole for politicians and lobbyists in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The senator was standing at a wash basin, drying his hands, when I entered the room. When he turned and saw me he rushed toward me, threw his arms around me, and said, "Paul, it's good to see you!" All I could do was mumble, "Senator, do you really think we should be seen hugging each other in a men's restroom?" He didn't think so, and neither did I, but we shared a good laugh over his impromptu display of affection.

Several years later, in 1991, he was killed when his plane collided with a Sun Oil Company helicopter over a Philadelphia suburb - the same helicopter that I often used to travel between Philadelphia and Washington, DC. The senator, his pilot and copilot, and both of Sun's helicopter pilots were killed. He was survived by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons. Four years later, after inheriting Heinz's $500 million fortune, she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal junior senator from Massachusetts. She became a registered Democrat and the process of her radicalization was set in motion.

Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she required Kerry to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before they were married. John Kerry may not have checkwriting privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune, but he is certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it. A lot of hard-earned money, made through many years of hawking catsup, pickles, and soup, has fallen into the hands of two people who despise successful entrepreneurship and who believe in the confiscatory redistribution of wealth. So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money? Just one example: According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?

They support numerous antiwar groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried. They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist" states. They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.

They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They support Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the Abortion Action Project. They support the most violent of all homosexual action groups, ACT-UP. They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico.

These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our would-be first lady -- the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th President of the United States. If voters will only try to imagine a woman such as Teresa Heinz Kerry, the fairy godmother of the radical left, laying her head on a pillow each night just inches from the President of the United States, hopefully they will decide that the only way these two will ever be allowed into the White House is with an engraved invitation in hand.

As I recall that somewhat embarrassing chance meeting in the men's restroom at the Maverick Steakhouse in Harrisburg, instead of mumbling some inane nonsense about getting caught in a friendly embrace, I wish now that I'd had the good sense to whisper in his ea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A question of free speech arose Saturday at the Lenoir County Courthouse Saturday when a Democratic party official removed signs opposing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. The controversy started after Lenoir County Democratic Party Chairman Lyle Holland pulled up six signs placed outside the courthouse by Ted Sampley, a founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, a group with the stated goal of stopping Kerry from winning the White House. Holland said he removed Sampley's signs because he thought they violated the rules of the caucus going on at the courthouse. Holland also removed two signs in support of N.C. Agriculture Secretary Britt Cobb, a Democrat running to keep his position in November.

But Sampley said he had a "fundamental right" to put those signs near the courthouse, and Holland's actions were a violation of his Constitutional right to free speech. "The signs weren't in support of any candidate," Sampley said. "Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry is a national organization with representatives in 30 states. Our only objective is to prevent John Kerry from becoming Commander-in-Chief." Sampley, who returned later that day to find the signs missing, said he questioned Holland about what had happened.

Holland, who returned the anti-Kerry signs to Sampley's downtown business after the caucus ended, said he felt he was just following the rules. "My understanding was there are not supposed to be any other signs near the voting," Holland said. "Several churches act as polling places, and they do not allow any political signs on their property. I was under the impression that there were not supposed to be any signs except for the one that said 'Vote Here.' This was not a political decision." State election rules do prohibit political signs within 50-feet of a polling place, but the Saturday caucus was run by the Democratic Party, not the County Board of Election, said Lenoir County Board of Commissioners Chairman Oscar Herring. Sampley said that several of the signs Holland removed were further away from the courthouse than 50 feet.

"Well, the way I see it, this was only a Democratic event," Herring said. "Therefore, the board of elections was not involved. It was county property, and it would appear to me that anyone who wanted to put up a sign had a right to." Herring said that there was nothing the county could do about incidents like this one.

Sampley said he didn't want this event to set a precedent. "Are we going to say that if you don't like somebody's sign, you can just go pull it out of the ground?" Sampley said. "I don't want to jeopardize any friendships, but this is a matter of fundamental rights." Sampley said he was going to write a letter to the county board. "It was just my interpretation," Holland said. "It wasn't a partisan thing." Holland said he later returned all of the signs he took, including the two belonging to Secretary Cobb's campaign.

Name:	Dr. Art
To:	individual

In response to:
a bunch of religious flakes in control later on

Message:
Wonderful trick to be able to predict the future with such certainty. Take your hand off you d*ck for a while and perhaps you'll be able to secure some gainful employment, jackass.

Name:	XYZ
To:	Saddam Loyalist

In response to:
Yeh. Chaos now and a bunch of religious flakes in control later on. Wow. Such a deal.

Message:
Yeh. It was much better when Saddam and his murderous sons were in power, the torture and rape rooms were running at full capacity, and the mass graves were overflowing. Now, that is a much better deal.

Name:

The American People

Message:
"I still cannot believe that I ever came to this country (USA). And I do not know why I ever married a politician." (Teresa Heinz Kerry).

Name:	David Shaw (LA Times)
Re:	All-left radio is lacking the right stuff for success

Message:
The first time I turned on Air America, the new liberal radio network, I heard a commentator arguing that Republicans did not initiate impeachment proceedings against President Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, lying or obstruction of justice. No, the man said, Republicans knew Clinton had committed no impeachable offenses, but they pursued impeachment anyway, in a diabolically clever ploy designed specifically to make the general public so disenchanted with the very idea of impeachment that they would not tolerate impeachment against the next (Republican) president — who, of course, deserves to be impeached immediately.

OK. That's about what I expected — liberal paranoia and conspiratorial idiocy to match the conservative paranoia and conspiratorial idiocy that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk have used to turn talk radio into a powerful forum that liberals now blame for every social and political malady this side of tooth decay.

Unfortunately, I greatly overestimated Air America's potential. Granted, Air America is only a few weeks old — and at midweek, it was off the air, at least temporarily, in L.A. and Chicago, amid a dispute with the owner of the stations in those cities over payment for air time. But paranoia and conspiratorial idiocy would be a big improvement on what Air America has been broadcasting.

After a few random samplings — on KBLA-AM (1580), one of six stations nationwide now carrying Air America — I realized that such in-and-out, drive-by listening wasn't the fairest way to judge it. I decided to listen to one entire day's original programming, all 17 hours.

So at 6 a.m. on Good Friday — the first anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the day after Condoleezza Rice testified before the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks — I tuned in to 1580, turned on my computer to take notes and sat with both until 11 p.m.

It may have been the most boring day of my life.

My fellow liberals have long argued that they haven't been able to match the conservative success on talk radio because the medium is ideally suited to conservatives. According to this self-serving argument, conservatives are more willing than liberals to engage in nasty name-calling and to see everything in black and white, while liberals — concerned with nuance and complexity — are inevitably reasonable, willing to consider both sides of an issue. But President W's policies — especially in Iraq — have now so enraged liberals that they are willing to play dirty too. Hence, Air America.

Not.

Not, at least, during the 17 hours I listened. Oh sure, the new network's assorted hosts, guests and callers did engage in a bit of obligatory name-calling. Henry Kissinger was "a war criminal." Rice was "reptilian," "a liar" and "a perjurer." President Bush was "an idiot," "a liar," a "lazy sack of crap," "a fake Christian," "a murdering scumbag" and — amid a discussion of Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl — "the biggest boob of all."

But Limbaugh does his name-calling so creatively and hilariously that it usually winds up being entertaining. As repellent as I find his politics, Limbaugh is an entertainer as well as a polemicist, and after liberal talk-show experiments with such policy wonks as former Govs. Jerry Brown of California and Mario Cuomo of New York all failed, the folks behind Air America promised that they'd learned their lesson. They too would find ideologues who are funny.

Nice try.

No laughing matter

Al Franken, a "Saturday Night Live" veteran, is certainly funny. And he's the host of Air America's 9 a.m.-to-noon program, a head-on competitor to Limbaugh. Franken's show is called "The O'Franken Factor" — a deliberate jab at Bill O'Reilly, the popular Fox commentator of"O'Reilly Factor" fame. Comic actress Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes, a talk-show host from south Florida, are also professionally funny. Garofalo co-hosts Air America's 8-to-11 p.m. "The Majority Report," and Rhodes hosts the network's drive-time show, from 3 to 7 p.m.

But I laugh easily, and I didn't get a single laugh from Franken, Garofalo or Rhodes — or from any of the other Air America hosts I listened to. Rhodes is the best of them, but unlike Limbaugh — who has a rich, mellifluous voice — her voice is so grating that I found myself wincing, no matter how vigorously I agreed with what she said. (Even Rhodes says, "I hate my voice.")

Funny jokes and easy listening are not the primary objectives of Air America, of course. They're simply the lure with which liberals hope to engage and convert the body politic. Most of the programming was as earnest as C-SPAN, though — and as dreary as a lecture on agriculture price supports, albeit filtered through a liberal sensibility.

Thus, Bush-bashing dominates the network, much as Clinton-bashing dominated conservative shows during his administration. Air America hosts also espoused predictably liberal views on race relations, gay rights, the 2000 presidential election and other issues.

That's what I would expect of a liberal radio network. And I was most pleased to hear black and gay voices among the network's hosts. What I didn't hear, though, was anything especially original in any of the host's attacks and observations.

That may not be necessary for an audience of true believers who are convinced that, as Rhodes said, "Liberals have always occupied the moral high ground." But conservatives turned talk radio into their medium in large measure because many people who considered themselves conservatives felt that their interests and their values were either ignored or denigrated by a liberal mainstream media. One recent poll showed that only 19% of the American public now identify themselves as liberal. That means that if a liberal network wants to be successful, politically or economically, it must also convert a significant number of the 39% of the public that the poll said considers itself moderate.

Good luck.

In a country in which 64% of the public say they attend weekend worship services at least once a month, mocking religion might not be the most effective way to win converts — and yet, on Good Friday no less, that's exactly what the various Air America hosts repeatedly did.

Two of the hosts gratuitously announced that they're Jewish, and one — Marc Maron of the network's "Morning Sedition" program — went on to make fun of Easter and Christmas rituals. Then, in a segment he called "morning devotional," Maron began his prayer for divine guidance on behalf of President Bush by saying, "Dear Lord, what the hell is going on up there?"

Another host — I think it was Rachel Maddow on "Unfiltered," though I couldn't always distinguish her voice from that of co-host Lizz Winstead — called Easter "an odd celebration" and said that a taxi driver had told her that "someone in a Jesus suit" would carry a cross along 42nd Street in New York in a reenactment of the events of Good Friday, "but in this case, he'll stop to buy a fake Louis Vuitton bag."

Huh?

The Air America hosts seemed equally shortsighted in their preoccupation with sex, another subject not designed to win over moderates. Shortly after opening his show, Maron, one of three hosts who felt compelled to mention his sex life, started talking about having sex with his "much younger" wife and thinking, "Wow, I'm really good at this" — only to suddenly feel very old when she said, "Don't kill yourself."

Maron also ticked off a mock list of chores the president would do that day — including ordering "an extra inch" for his penis.

All Maron's comments drew hoots of supportive laughter from co-hosts Sue Ellicott and Mark Riley. In fact, I think what ultimately annoyed — and disappointed me — the most about Air America was all the false, aren't-we-funny, aren't-we-smart laughter that virtually all the hosts gave each other. Four of Air America's six weekday programs have co-hosts — and two have three co-hosts apiece, liberal collectives that stand in stark contrast to the individual, every-man-for-himself approach of the conservatives. Maybe that's one reason they don't work as well as, say, Limbaugh's solo effort.

It shouldn't take a village to raise a radio program.

Name:

F the French

Message:

This is getting a 3-star rating because of all the leftists giving it a 1 star... of course they haven't read it. When a book gets either five stars or 1 stars, then it's something to look into!!!

Name:

The Real Deal

Message:

Yeh. Chaos now and a bunch of religious flakes in control later on. Wow. Such a deal.

Name:	Smoke Tree
Re:	http://www.2ndamendment.com/news.htm

Message:
That Darn Kerry!

Name:	wondering wanderer
To:	Frogman Chernov

In response to:
Christians get spooked!

Message:
"Passion" movie tickets carry un-Christian message By The Associated Press (3/1/04 - ROME, GA) — Tickets at one movie theater screening Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" are being deemed decidedly unholy. Want more? Check out the Bizarre-chives! The number 666, which many Christians recognize as the "mark of the beast," is appearing on movie tickets for Gibson's film at a Georgia theater, drawing complaints from some moviegoers. The machine that prints tickets assigned the number 666 as a prefix on all the tickets for the film, said Gary Smith, owner of the Movies at Berry Square in northwest Georgia. The 666 begins a series of numbers that are listed below the name of the movie, the date, time and price. "It's from our computer and it's absolutely a coincidence," Smith said. "It has nothing to do with the film company or any vendor. It's completely in our computer." In the Bible, the book of Revelation says 666 is the "number of the beast," usually interpreted as Satan or the Antichrist. Several patrons have made comments about the numbers, and one person who was uncomfortable having 666 on her ticket asked for a pass to be substituted for a ticket. "A lot of people have asked what the numbers mean, some said it seemed odd, some said it was inappropriate," said theater employee Erica Diaz. The movie, which opened Wednesday, is a graphic depiction of Christ's final hours and crucifixion. (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Miss any of these?

Name:	Humberto Colon
To:	Individual
Re:	Bush has ruined everything

In response to:
President Kerry

Message:
America must swallow her pride and surrender and apologize to the United Nations at once. All back dues and fees must be paid immediately! When we have thus returned to our proper place in the International Community, President Kerry can then turn his attention to cleaning up this poisoned water supply and sending Halliburton to the World Court for proper punishment by the proper authority.

Name:	Individual Concerned
To:	Numerologists
Re:	It is written...

In response to:
666

Message:
You need to get to work on this, people. How does "666" relate to "John Forbes Kerry-Kohn" and "President of The United States"? We must beat the religious flakes at their own game, and trick them into thinking that their "god" is on Kerry's side in the election. They do everything in lock-step, of course, so all we need to do is to get a few of them to vote Kerry, and the rest will mindlessly follow. We must get Kerry in there. Bush has ruined everthing.

Name:

The American People

In response to:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040418/capt.srs10404181813.democrats_kerry_srs104.jpg

Message:

Guess separation of church and state only applies to Republican. Can you image what the Left Wing media would do if Bush gave a campaign speech in a church! Speaking of political speech in churches…what is John F’n Kerry, a pretend Catholic, doing in a Methodist church?

Name:

Theresa

Message:

"John, that's the guy who's been sending me emails as "Individual"

He says you only boink me for campaign cash"

Name:

Democrats in Free Fall

In response to:
You need to get to work on this, people. How does "666" relate to "John Forbes Kerry-Kohn" and "President of The United States"? We must beat the religious flakes at their own game, and trick them into thinking that their "god" is on Kerry's side in the election. They do everything in lock-step, of course, so all we need to do is to get a few of them to vote Kerry, and the rest will mindlessly follow. We must get Kerry in there. Bush has ruined everthing.

Message:

...and we can do this by having John F'n Kerry give political speeches in churches (we all know separation of church and state only applies to Republicans) Opps, somebody better remind John F'n Kerry he is a Catholic and not a Methodist.

Name:	Paparazzi
To:	Bill Clinton

In response to:
How to Spot an Easy Girl

Message:
"Hey Hillary...smell mah finger"

Name:

Dumbfu*ck Rightwinger

In response to:
The Bush Administration should not be picking and choosing among workers," she said.

Message:
Only we democrats should be able to pick and choose! We will tax the hell out of some of you!

She'll do for the country what she did for Arkansas.

Name:	Patriot
To:	Spin

In response to:
Is this the UN you and flipper kerry think will save the world

Message:
Mideast - AFP

Annan says no role for UN peacekeepers in Iraq

Wed Apr 21, 2:52 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said he saw no role for UN peacekeepers in Iraq (news - web sites), meaning the Security Council would have to approve an international force after Iraqis begin self-rule.

"There is need for assistance in the effort to create a secure environment," Annan said just hours after 68 people were killed in a series of car bombings in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

"Some international military presence is going to be required for the foreseeable future. I do not think it can be or ought to be UN peacekeepers. So the council may have to agree to allow a multinational force to do it."

Security is a key concern for Annan, who has pledged to help Iraqis set up an interim government to take sovereignty from the US-led occupation by July 1 and prepare for Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) elections early next year.

He pulled all international staff out of Iraq in October following a bombing at the UN's Baghdad offices which killed 22 people, including top UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Faced with a serious escalation of violence in Iraq, the United States has turned to the United Nations (news - web sites) for help in smoothing opposition to its plans for Iraq's future.

But Annan again said any UN role in Iraq will be limited by the bloodshed, and recalled that an earlier council resolution allowed him to use his discretion concerning the return of UN staff.

"We would like to play an important role in Iraq but the circumstances have to allow us to do that," he said. "We hope the attempts to reduce the violence will succeed. Until that is done, security is a constraint for us."

He said the spread of violence to Basra, which has been relatively calm despite the bloodshed elsewhere in the country, was "not comforting" as the United Nations mulls how to proceed in Iraq.

"We have all been anxious to see the attempts to reduce violence succeed, not for it to spread. And of course, the security situation on the ground has a very important impact on our decisions."

Name:	Patriot
To:	Spinner

In response to:
"Some international military presence is going to be required for the foreseeable future. I do not think it can be or ought to be UN peacekeepers. So the council may have to agree to allow a multinational force to do it."

Message:
So it is ok for a multi-national force that the UN can blame but the UN does not want to sanction a force under any circumstances. But then flipper says he will grovel and apologize for us all and the un will all of a sudden flip-flop and agree to take over security for the US. What kind of a guy runs for president of the U.S. with a promise that he will be an apologist at a time of war?

Kerry is not a president he is a flip-flopping spineless jellyfish who will destroy the credibility of the U.S. around the world. He might as well just tell S. Korea and our other allies we are going to turn over your security concerns to the U.N. and good luck.

Name:	partofVRWC
To:	APPEASERS

Message:
Up Against Fanaticism By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor, Panama City News Herald

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too. This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims. Some readers didn't like it.

Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don't want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we?

That's just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims.

They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims.

We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them.

One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more that 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week that Muslims still resent the Crusades. Well, Madam Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France.

Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland.

Sound Familiar?

Let's consider the concept of a "long war.! " Last time it was 200 years, give or take. Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn't fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That's the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims - some live here - but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the million gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on "diversity," we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror.

Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century . Then go back a thousand years.

Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is.

But many Americans don't get it.

That's why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it's a start.

Name:

Democrats are Special

In response to:
Senator's Wife Charged With Assault
Sources: Dispute Started With Garden Mulch
POSTED: 5:28 pm EDT April 21, 2004
UPDATED: 6:16 pm EDT April 21, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The wife of a U.S. senator is in trouble with the law.

Message:
Wanda Baucus is the wife of Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. She is accused of assaulting a woman Tuesday at Johnson's Garden Center on Van Ness Street, Northwest.
Mrs. Baucus was released Wednesday afternoon after an appearance in D.C. Superior Court. She was officially charged with assault in court.
The incident happened in the parking lot of the garden center.
Sources told News4 that Mrs. Baucus was upset because another customer was getting help with mulch ahead of her.
Sources told News4's Pat Collins that Mrs. Baucus dropped a bag of mulch under the woman's car, then struck the woman in the body and face a number of times.
Collins reported that Mrs. Baucus drove from the scene, and returned a while later with her husband. That is when she talked to police about the incident.
A warrant for Mrs. Baucus was issued Wednesday and she was booked at the 2nd District police headquarters. From there, she was taken to D.C. Superior Court.
The judge released her on her personal recognizance on the condition that she stays away from the victim and away from the garden center.
The senator released a statement Wednesday, saying, "There was a situation involving Wanda last night. We are trying to sort it out, going through proper channels. I stand by her 110 percent, and she has my full support."

Name:	Patriot
To:	Spindividual

In response to:
Yeh. Chaos now and a bunch of religious flakes in control later on. Wow. Such a deal.

Message:
Doesn't it bother you at all that everytime you post on here it is always negative towards your country? Do you really hate your country or just anything to elect a democrat no matter how much damage to your country? The end justifies the means I guess is how you look at it. That put's you with "the swimmer" teddy "I am going to get help, hold your breath" kennedy.

Name:

back at you boring ggs

Message:

Name:	back at you boring R-ep-ub-lic-ans
To:	Can't you guys on the right do anything else than bash-bash-bash?
Re:	Why can't the right think? Boring Bashers - WE CAN DO THAT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Message:
body>

Name:	Patriot
To:	back at you boring ggs

Message:
That's it? I don't get it. Throw out some baseless claims with no backup or proof, hope it sticks. You and the democratic party are sad, sad. Poor dead donkey

Name:

Patriot

In response to:
Why can't the right think? Boring Bashers - WE CAN DO THAT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Message:
No that is all you can do, no platform, no legitimate plan, apologize for the US and hope the french bail us out. The donkey was taken around back by the flaming liberals and shot, poor dead donkey

Name:

Panama City News Herald

Message:
Enough to make you sick

By Phil Lucas Executive Editor

The stories we tell define the nation. Stories poorly told can destroy it.

It works the same with children. If you tell 10 stories a day to a lovely child and nine of them say she is weak, ugly and stupid, she will come to believe it. She may be pregnant by 15, a meth addict by 17, join a cult by 19, then elope with the family cat to get married in Massachusetts.

So it goes with the country. Consider our national storytellers: the media.

Ten days ago, American and coalition forces engaged Iraqi “insurgents,” as the national press politely calls them. Sane Americans know them as the enemy, gunmen of an Islamic religious leader. An American brigadier general gave a televised briefing on the battle for several cities. As he explained the fight for Fallujah and how we had taken three bridges at Kut, suddenly across the bottom of the screen appeared a Fox News Alert: EXPLOSION HEARD IN BAGHDAD!!!!!

Fox immediately switched to a camera shot of a Baghdad skyline. The voice of a reporter came on, urgently speculating about an explosion, perhaps caused by a car bomb or a mortar or an RPG (rocket propelled grenade, to the unwashed) or whatever else the reporter could think of. Then the camera zeroed in on a hole in some concrete, perhaps a parking lot or sidewalk. The hole appeared to be about the size of a wheelbarrow, the evident location of the EXPLOSION HEARD IN BAGHDAD!!!!!

They got an expert on the phone. The TV guys keep a herd of experts handy for just such an event. The reporter asked the expert what could have happened.

He said to her, and I paraphrase, “I’ll tell you what happened. This is a war of information. You were showing the general’s briefing, and they wanted you off it, so they set off a bomb in Baghdad.”

The reporter stammered, “Uh, oh . . .” and commenced to get the guy off the phone. He had more expertise than she expected.

A quick flick to CNN showed the same camera shot: a hole in concrete. On MSNBC: a hole in concrete.

No doubt the general continued his briefing, the subject of which was the most intense and costly fighting in a year.

A war of information. Of storytelling. Comically inept, you think? True. But this sort of reporting by the national press is not the exception. When the press reports about Iraq and virtually all other contested issues in the news, ineptitude is the rule. This is true of television and also of print reporting. We zero in on the worst thing that happens, time after time, day after day, the effect of which is to present the worst thing as the norm, even when it is only one-tenth of the whole story. For good measure, we throw in our personal opinions, arrogantly certain they are correct.

We have all noticed that the few stories we get from people who have served in or visited Iraq rarely match the sky-is-falling enthusiasm we get from our press.

Some call this biased reporting. I call it deceitful, or just plain lying.

Four weeks ago the Israelis killed Ahmed Yassin, the Islamic religious leader who founded Hamas, one of the purposes of which is to kill Israelis. Some news reports called him “revered spiritual leader.” Revered by whom? Israelis? Americans? Palestinians? Is there any doubt as to the reporters’ opinion?

Virtually all news reports said he was “assassinated,” which means murder, an illegal act. From the Israeli point of view, is it illegal to chop the head off a snake trying to strike you? Reporters could have written “executed,” a word loaded in the other direction, implying legality and favoring the Israelis. Or they could have just written “killed” and let readers and viewers decide what is right and what is wrong.

Here’s a line from an Associated Press story about the president’s press conference last week. “Bush sidestepped at least two opportunities to say he wanted to apologize or take personal responsibility.”

“Sidestepped?” “Opportunities?” Nobody sidesteps opportunities. You sidestep duck droppings on the sidewalk. Think this reporter has an opinion he wants to share? If he reveals this kind of blatant bias in any part of a news story, it casts a shadow over every word he writes.

USA Today wrote this: “Offered numerous chances to second-guess his approach to Iraq, he rejected them all.”

Nobody “rejects” any “chances” worth taking. It defies human nature. As for “second-guessing,” we don’t need to guess whose opinion that is. The reporters’ two names are in the byline. Assuming perhaps that their readers were too stupid to get it, the reporters used these words a few paragraphs down: “denied,” “argued” and “conceded.” All referred to Bush. These are words for the opinion pages, like the one you are on now, unless you draw no distinction between news and opinion, unless you believe your opinion is the news.

Press folly plumbs new depths when witnessed live, as in the televised press conference itself.

It was enough to raise old editors from the dead, their standards and self-discipline sorely missing from the modern newsroom. Others of us just squirmed with embarrassment, partly for the president, prone to trip over a syllable, but mostly for the profession. Reporter after reporter couched questions in the negative, assuming the worst was true, knowing the worst was true, looking for the kill. They used words like failure, defeat and mistake, time after time after time. That’s not reporting. That’s not seeking truth. That’s an agenda.

Smelling blood, the pack salivated for an apology from the president.

On this point I agree. An apology is in order.

So here it is.

I am sorry our storytellers have us by the neck. We are better than they picture us. We are better than they are.

As an editor, I apologize to Americans for the national disgrace of inept and self-indulgent journalists, who hound after the worst and ugliest to the exclusion of much else, who strut their opinions with conceit, and who spew it all forth upon the public and call it news.

Name:	Way Right of George Bush
To:	American Communists
Re:	Dead-end Donkey

In response to:
Why can't the right think? Boring Bashers - WE CAN DO THAT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Message:
It's all you Leftists ever do when you aren't jacking up taxes and layering on more regulation: whine and bash. You should hear yourselves! You'd surely be embarrassed! Your presidential candidate is a lousy pissant, and that's a fact. That's not our fault. That is YOUR fault!

You should all be required to drive air-conditioned motorhomes, eat cheeseburgers, and drink tap water and Coca Cola!

Name:	Columbia Journalism Profs
To:	All
Re:	Columbia School of Journalism

In response to:
Pushing our product on the nightly news

Message:
We are about as dedicated a bunch of malignant old Radic-Lib Communist ideologues as you could hope to find anywhere in the world today!

Name:

Fudd

Message:
Did you all like The Passion of the Christ?

Name:	bordertex
To:	forum
Re:	the threat george bush is to the country

Message:

The reality is that indeed John Kerry has been involved in congressional decision making as a long time Senator in Washington more familiar with the Washington corridors than a Texas corporate bought republican who all he could do was use the american military in Iraq to satisfy his political ambitions here at home

because this is all Iraq has been, bush's political platform

and then we have all those american coffins flying back so lets get one thing straight right wingers

george walker bush will never have, the Washington experience the experienced Senator from Massachussetts has and has been part of the apartus that makes the country run in Washington

and that the republicans in the majority in Congress were unwilling to reach common sense and middle ground with the democratic struggle to address critical social issues as poverty and miminum wages human health and fighting the aids virus and controling the spread of assault weapons to civilians

because if today in Iraq the american coalition pleads with Iraq to turn over their AK-47's, and weapons of mass destruction, then why is the republican party of george bush having a problem understanding the opposition to the spread of Ak-47's to shoot deer in the United States for sport?

I mean if the problems created by terrorism include the reality that high assault weapons are in the hands of civilians in IRAQ and which is undemocratic, then why are republicans here in the United States trying to wipe out the assault weapons ban because the NRA and gun manufacturers would rather press assault weapons on the civil way of life in the United States I mean if its a crime in Iraq to have an Ak -47 like most Iraqis carry in bush's oil war for american blood in Iraq, then why are this republicans encouraging the sale of assault weapons through Texas pawn shops and every hole this republicans have made possible?

If the civilians in America are free under our democracy to purchase assault weapons with bullets able to cause massive destruction, then why is this democracy not good enough in IRaq that after all they dont have to purchase the weapons since they already have them, WHY IS IT A CRIME IN IRAQ TO CARRY AN ASSAULT WEAPON AND REPUBLICANS HERE ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS WHEN THEY SPIT ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BILL?

SURELY SOMETHING IS WRONG IN A COUNTRY WHERE we are faced with the appointed presidency of a ball park manager who spat and shined his boots instead of fighting in the jungles of Vietnam as President John kerry did because I believe that if this country has any intelligence left, John Kerry will be President because this is the only choice Americans have

because all bush has given this country is the biggest reasons to remove him from office while his republican twin brother in the State of Texas Rick Perry attempts to destroy and dismantle the Texas Public School System by again allowing the fewer rich to exploit the massive poor on the backs of the children of this country who will be left out of the halls of public education if this republican corrupt thugs have their way in Texas

Somehow george walker bush was able to avoid and evade debates during his governorship of Texas and as we all know, george bush was a big contributor to ENRON ripping off all those Texas investors as well as the Texas Teachers Retirement

heeee heeeeee heeeeeee, maybe Rick Perry thinks that if he wipes out public education he can erase the fact Texas Teachers lost their retirements to ENRON who escaped paying Taxes while george bush was "governor of Texas"

so its a sleazy lot these republican jand only by removing republicans from office can a John Kerry Presidential Administration do our country aj favor after all the harm bush has caused it because when a republican takes a political contribution from a corporation who then runs the country tjhrough its Washington lobbyist, no longer is this democracy and george bush and cheney are the biggest threats to democracy.

Name:	The Mayor of Castroville
To:	Bordertex

In response to:
heeee heeeeee heeeeeee, maybe Rick Perry thinks that if he wipes out

Message:
Wanna buy a goat?

Name:	Chigger Brown
To:	Deedleboutoniers
Re:	Spike it, he's a donkey!

In response to:
Who would Jesus spank?

Message:
WASHINGTON AP STRANGE NEWS (FROM YAHOO.COM)- The wife of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was accused on Wednesday of hitting a woman in a dispute over mulch at a garden center, police said.

(AP Photo of dumpy-looking woman) Wanda Baucus, 56, was arraigned in D.C. Superior Court on a change of simple assault, a misdemeanor, and released on her own recognizance under condition that she stay away from the other woman and the store. The incident took place Tuesday; Baucus turned herself in on Wednesday. Baucus apparently was upset she did not get help loading the mulch into her car while the other woman was being assisted, a police spokesman said. Witnesses told police that Baucus put a bag of mulch behind the woman's car, preventing her from leaving the store, and that after the exchanging words, allegedly struck the woman several times, police said.

Wanda Baucus' lawyer, David Schertler, said he disagreed with the version of events offered by the police and witnesses. "Based on what we know, we do not believe that there was any kind of criminal assault in this case and we don't believe there was any basis for the charges," he said. The lawmaker acknowledged in a statement that there was a "situation" involving his wife. "We are trying to sort it out, going through the proper channels," he said. "I stand by her 110 percent." ....

Name:	DNC
Re:	War is heck

Message:
Bordertex IS the soul of the Democratic party.

Name:	Reggie Warren
Re:	bordertex

Message:
bordertex is the epitome of self promotion. She embodies her own fanclub. Trust me on this.

Name:	The Fax
To:	forum
Re:	BORDERTEX

Message:
BORDERTEX is not real. There is no possible way that BORDERTEX is a real person who thinks that way. BORDERTEX is a Big time Phil Hendrie fan. BORDERTEX is a Phil Hendrie copy-cat wannabe. Nobody actually thinks like that. No way do I believe BORDERTEX is real.

Name:	Reggie Warren
To:	The Fax

In response to:
BORDERTEX is a Big time Phil Hendrie fan. BORDERTEX is a Phil Hendrie copy-cat wannabe.

Message:
LOL. Phil Hendrie is the cat's meow. He cracks me up majorly. I imagine ET as Bobbie Dooley, no?

Name:

Baby Killer

Message:

DOWN WITH GEORGE W. BUSH, HE'S A SHITHEAD!!

---

because Iraq is a danger to this nation and others

and then we have all those john kerry lies so lets get one thing straight left wingers

john heinz kerry will never have, the Washington experience the experienced president from Texas has and has been part of the apartus that makes the country run in Washington

and that the democrats in the minority in Congress were unwilling to reach common sense and middle ground with the democratic struggle to address critical social issues as poverty and miminum wages human health and fighting the aids virus and controling the spread of assault weapons to civilians

because if today in Iraq the american coalition pleads with Iraq to turn over their AK-47's, and weapons of mass destruction, then why is the democrat party of john kerry having a problem understanding the opposition to the spread of Ak-47's to shoot deer in the United States for sport?

I mean if the problems created by terrorism include the reality that high assault weapons are in the hands of civilians in IRAQ and which is undemocratic, then why are democrats here in the United States trying to wipe out the assault weapons ban because the NRA and gun manufacturers would rather press assault weapons on the civil way of life in the United States I mean if its a crime in Iraq to have an Ak -47 like most Iraqis carry then why are this democrats encouraging the sale of assault weapons through Arkansas pawn shops and every hole this democrats have made possible?

If the civilians in America are free under our democracy to purchase assault weapons with bullets able to cause massive destruction, then why is this democracy not good enough in IRaq that after all they dont have to purchase the weapons since they already have them, WHY IS IT A CRIME IN IRAQ TO CARRY AN ASSAULT WEAPON AND DEMOCRATS HERE ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS WHEN THEY SPIT ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BILL?

SURELY SOMETHING IS WRONG IN A COUNTRY WHERE we are blessed with the elected presidency of a courageous leader who did not kill innocent civilians as John kerry did because I believe that if this country has any intelligence left, George Bush will be President because this is the only choice Americans have

because all kerry has given this country is the biggest reasons to keep him out of office while his evil wife hides her tax returns and creates slave labor in undeveloped countries

Somehow john kerry was able to avoid and evade debates during his senatorship and as we all know, john kerry was a big contributor to ENRON ripping off all those Texas investors as well as the Texas Teachers Retirement

heeee heeeeee heeeeeee, maybe john kerry thinks that if he wipes out public education he can erase the fact Texas Teachers lost their retirements to ENRON who escaped paying Taxes while john kerry is senator

so its a sleazy lot these democrat jand only by removing democrats from office can a George Bush Presidential Administration do our country aj favor after all the harm kerry has caused it because when a democrat takes a political contribution from a corporation who then runs the country tjhrough its Washington lobbyist, no longer is this democracy and john kerry and clinton are the biggest threats to democracy.

Name:	XYZ
To:	Baby Killer

Message:
Put down your bag of greasy potato chips and your copy of People magazine, pick up your mop, and get back to work, you slug.

Name:	David Korn-Poop
To:	other drooling idiots

Message:
Look at me real close............. Do I look insane????? Do I act like Paxil is my lifeline to reality???? Is there white foam in the corner of my mouth??? Do I sound and act like every other "Bush is a N A Z I(National Socialist) moron yellow journalist??? Do I?????? DO I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Name:	Rub Doctor
Re:	The Bordertex

In response to:
bordertex is the epitome of self promotion. She embodies her own fanclub. Trust me on this.

Message:
By weight, her fan club exceeds all others!

Name:

Victory Cigar Anyone?

Message:

Name:

..

Message:

Name:

new forum

Message:

Name:

brad

In response to:
That put's you with "the swimmer" teddy "I am going to get help, hold your breath" kennedy

Message:
I'm Just a cherry.