American soldiers and Iraqi police today raided the offices and home of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician once favored by the Pentagon, and removed computers and documents.

Agence France-Presse

The glass in a portrait of Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmed Chalabi was smashed during the raid.

G.I.'s and Iraqis Raid Offices and Home of Former Exile Leader

AGHDAD, Iraq, May 20 — American soldiers and Iraqi police today raided the offices and home of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician once favored by the Pentagon, and removed computers and documents.

About 100 American and Iraqi law enforcement officers, including officials from the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., were involved in the raids, witnesses said.

Reporters who entered the office compound after the departure of the Americans and Iraqi officers found a scene of destruction. Computers had been ripped out of the walls, furniture had been overturned, doors broken down and framed photographs of Mr. Chalabi smashed. Aides to Mr. Chalabi said members of the raiding party had helped themselves to food and beverages from the refrigerator.

According to Mr. Chalabi's aides, the Americans are looking for two men close to the Iraqi politician, one of whom is Mr. Chalabi's security chief and presides over a vast intelligence network.

American occupation authorities declined to comment this morning on the raids.

"This is politically motivated intimidation," said an aide to Mr. Chalabi as he wandered through the debris-strewn offices of the Iraqi National Congress, Mr. Chalabi's political organization. He blamed L. Paul Bremer III, the top American adminstrator here, for the raids.

"Bremer," he said, "has lost his mind."

The raids illuminated a huge rupture in what had been the Bush adminstration's most important personal and political relationship in Iraq. Mr. Chalabi, a longtime exile leader and now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, played a crucial role in persuading the administration that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. But he has since become a lightning rod for critics of the Bush administration, who say the United States relied on him too heavily for prewar intelligence that has since proved faulty.

In recent weeks, the relationship has further soured as Mr. Chalabi has openly criticized Mr. Bremer and has advocated a more expansive definition of the sovereignty which Iraq will assume on June 30, including full Iraqi control of its armed forces and oil revenues.

In recent months, Mr. Chalabi has also criticized Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations official who is organizing an Iraqi government to take control of the country on July 1 and whose efforts have been embraced by the White House. And he has objected to Mr. Bremer's efforts to leave the governing council out of an investigation of alleged corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program for Iraq.

Aides close to Mr. Chalabi say the animosity between him and Mr. Bremer has grown so severe that the Iraqi has taken to skipping Iraqi Governing Council meetings that Mr. Bremer attends.

The Iraqi National Congress revealed earlier this week that the American government had decided to halt monthly $335,000 payments to the group.

Mr. Chalabi's group has received at least $27 million in United States financing in the past four years, an Iraqi National Congress official said earlier this week. This includes $335,000 a month as part of a classified program through the Defense Intelligence Agency, since the summer of 2002, to help gather intelligence in Iraq.

Internal reviews by the United States government have found that much of the information provided as part of the classified program before American forces invaded Iraq last year was useless, misleading or even fabricated.

The official from Mr. Chalabi's group said the classified program had originally been scheduled to end Sept. 30, 2003, but was extended twice — to Dec. 31, 2003, and then again, to June 30, 2004. The official said he did not know why the government decided not to extend the program again.

Salem Chalabi, nephew of Mr. Chalabi and head of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal, told The A.P. that his uncle told him by telephone that Iraqi and American authorities "entered his home and put the guns to his head in a very humiliating way that reminds everyone of the conduct of the former regime."

Ali Sarraf, the finance director of the Iraqi National Congress, describe a tableau of brutality. "We offered them the keys and they showed us guns," he said. "They kicked the door down."

Standing amid the debris in the organization's offices, he said: "Bremer is panicking. This is about settling things with Dr. Chalabi."

Dexter Filkins reported from Baghdad for this article and Kirk Semple reported from New York source...

The more I try to convince myself that liberals truly have America’s best interests at heart, the harder it becomes. Whether it’s the constant chants of “quagmire,” the endless whining about Bush’s “lies,” or all the contradictory bellyaching about stealing Mideast oil amidst rising gasoline prices, there’s nothing that brings out liberals’ true colors quite like war.

So I’m just going to come right out and say it. Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I find myself wondering constantly if liberalism isn’t really de facto anti-Americanism. No, really. I’m not just talking run-of-the-mill Bush hatred here. I’m beginning to believe this is a condition of membership before they issue you your club card.

How dare I think such a thing, you ask? Well, before I’m condemned to the gates of hell, let me explain.

Suggestions of this nature always tend to raise the ire of many a liberal, no doubt eliciting accusations of jingoism, “intolerance,” and the like. But regardless of its appearance, this isn’t a cheap ploy to score shock-value points. Nor do I prefer to have to question the devotion of many Americans to their country. Unfortunately, however, the reasons I feel I must abound.

For starters, the concept that liberals despise America -- or at the very least denounce American exceptionalism -- is obvious to many conservatives. But liberals positively chafe at the idea that they’re unpatriotic. In fact, you don’t even need to accuse liberals of a lack of patriotism for them to go on the defensive.

Consider John Kerry. During the Democratic primaries, Republicans merely needed to point out Kerry’s opposition to defense systems throughout the years for the senator to accuse them of attacking his patriotism, and for him to remind everyone -- again -- that he’s a war hero. To listen to liberals, you’d think we were accusing these people of pedophilia. So it kind of makes you wonder, Why all the self-consciousness?

Now, I’m not blatantly accusing Senator Kerry of being anti-American. Lord knows I’d hate to have to put out that brushfire. Besides, we all know how much the French love America.

When football-star-turned-Army-Ranger Pat Tillman was killed last April in Afghanistan, liberals hadn’t been that excited since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of killing unborn babies on demand. It’s hard to explain the irony surrounding the far-left websites that condemned Tillman for being a “baby killer,” but at least they clarified their stance by celebrating the death of this “dumb jock” who “got what he deserved.” This, however, wasn’t quite as telling as the virtually silent response of the mainstream media to this bile.

On May 12, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin -- no raging right-winger he -- criticized Air America -- the new liberal “equivalent” of conservative talk-radio -- for being “a cartoonish echo chamber” with little more to offer than “crude sex jokes.” He also reported its “rancid venom directed at the President, (Donald) Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh, [and] the Catholic Church,” and noted disturbing calls for the torture of Rumsfeld and the murder of President Bush.

The week of May 1-7, Time magazine ran a Bruce Beattie cartoon depicting a terrorist (likely Osama bin Laden) driving a tank with its barrel pointed at a submitting American man and his son standing beside a street sign reading Main St. USA. The caption reads, “Imagine, for a moment, the situation reversed:” The terrorist states, “We’ve invaded to install a government so that you give up democracy. Bonus points for converting to Islam.” This implication of moral equivalence is jaw-dropping. Get it? Democracy is no better than fascist tyranny. The U.S. intentionally targets innocents. America is forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity. Please.

In short, the left would rather appease terrorists instead of confronting them; they’d sooner turn over to the U.N. control of our destiny before empowering the U.S. to determine its own fate; and liberal media outlets like CBS and the Washington Post have demonstrated through their publication of the Abu Ghraib prison photos that they’re willing to incite Arab anti-American malice, which they now nonchalantly accept from Islamic terrorists as the principal rationale for the beheading of Nick Berg (as if we hadn’t witnessed the barbaric murder and mutilation of our own troops and civilians at home and in Iraq prior to the release of these photos).

The current scandal over the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners is only the latest attempt by liberals to undermine the nobility of our cause in Iraq and the war on terror, as if our soldiers who participated in this atrocity somehow represent the rule instead of the exception. Don’t get me wrong, the guards involved in this mess should be tried swiftly and harshly, and they undoubtedly will. But the media’s simple refusal to simultaneously introduce the soldiers who actually declined to follow those dishonorable orders at Abu Ghraib indicates its preference to exploit this situation as prima facie evidence of the existing state of affairs in American warfighting, and to paint the U.S. in the worst possible light.

In the interest of rationality -- not to mention quelling potential death threats -- I obviously know that there are some sensible liberals out there, but you’d hardly know it listening to the prevailing sentiment on the left. I can even understand why liberals would be upset after being accused of being anti-American. But considering how they act, I can’t understand how they can deny it.

Name:	Lash Larrupin'
To:	B. F. Skinner Sucks Roadkill
Re:	Lord of Flies

In response to:
Nothing SUCKS quite like a 21st century American Communist!

Bush touted tax cuts creating jobs at factory which is CLOSING now that Bush has rewarded his fat cats with the people's money.

Capital creates no value, labor does. Thus tax cuts rob the PEOPLE for the CAPITAL!

Name:	Smarty Jones
To:	ET

In response to:
I'm glad to hear that. I'd like to believe most conservatives that come in here feel the same way you do, but I'm not sure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:
It's pretty clear that most of them do, at least as far as the brain-dead anti-Hillary rot. I object to Hillary's Socialist politics. I don't care how many lamps she bounces off of Bill Clinton, if any. The more the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Name:	Zell Miller
Re:	Quote of the day

Message:
"Congress could mess up a one car funeral procession"

Name:

Mr. Pleasant

In response to:
I find myself wondering constantly if liberalism isn’t really de facto anti-Americanism.

Message:
No doubt about it. They hate individualism. This individualism is what made America great. They hate it, ergo they hate America.

Name:	WHAMPOA!!!
To:	The Beguiled
Re:	Michael Moore is the darling of the jet-setting Communist crowd.

In response to:
HMMMM... odd, isn't it? Better make that the "Guilty Filthy Rich Red Palm". I hope Georgie Soros gives Moore millions to put this film in every theater in America! Run it on CNN and PBS!! ABC, CBS, NBC, Turner networks, GET WITH IT! I WANT THIS MASTERPIECE ON EVERY BIG SCREEN AND IN EVERY LIVINGROOM IN AMERICA! SHOW IT IN THE STREETS OF SOUTH CENTRAL!! TAKE IT TO EVERY PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT ACROSS OUR PROSTRATE LAND!! TO EVERY FEEDING STATION!! EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE!! EVERY BRIDGE WHERE THE HOMELESS HUDDLE UNDER BUSH!! DO IT NOW!! right now!! oNLY 175 DAYS LEFT!!

Message:
He also raises the issue of Vice President Cheney's May 3 excursion to the Wal-Mart distribution center in Bentonville, Ark. Did taxpayers fund an obvious campaign trip? Brown v. Board Mike Allen and Dan Balz write in The Washington Post: "President Bush saluted the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation ruling [in Topeka, Kan.] Monday with a tribute to America as 'a nation that strives to do right,' while Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) hailed half a century of racial progress but said the nation continues to fail black and Hispanic citizens. . . . "The back-to-back speeches by the rival candidates gave a preview of face-offs to come. Bush remains intent on projecting optimism, despite polls showing that a majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and Kerry is jumping into the role of challenger by highlighting conditions he would strive to fix. . . . "During an interlude in the warm-up speeches as the flag-waving crowd awaited Bush's arrival, Air Force One flew directly over the school as a youth choir sang 'Let There Be Peace on Earth.' The flyover, a reminder of the huge benefits of incumbency, was carried live on local television." Adam Nagourney and Richard W. Stevenson write in the New York Times: "The remarks by the president and Mr. Kerry, his likely Democratic opponent, came in two separate if perhaps unequal events to commemorate the anniversary of the case, Brown v. Board of Education, which sprang from this city 50 years ago." And, they write: "The commemoration brought the two candidates into unusually close contact, albeit in a Republican state that almost surely will not be in play this year. Accordingly, their visits were brief. . . . " Tim Carpenter's lead story for the Topeka Capital-Journal barely even mentions Kerry. Here's the text of Bush's remarks. Today's Calendar Scott Lindlaw of the Associated Press writes: "President Bush will push his Mideast peace effort before an influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the latest bid by his administration to court Jewish voters who could tip the balance in a tight election." Reaction Watch Here are statement from Bush yesterday on gay marriage and the killing of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council. Michael Moore Watch

Desson Thomson writes in The Washington Post from Cannes: " 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' Michael Moore's most powerful film since 'Roger & Me,' slices and dices President Bush's presidency into a thousand satirical pieces. . . .

"Judging by the spirited pandemonium that has greeted this documentary at the Cannes Film Festival, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' not only is the film to beat in the competition for the Golden Palm, it also has the makings of a cultural juggernaut -- a film for these troubling times."

- By Dan Froomkin. Source? Ask Lord of Flies or "Dubya", if they're not one and the same.

Name:	ET
To:	Velma Lee's Store

In response to:
In the interest of rationality -- not to mention quelling potential death threats -- I obviously know that there are some sensible liberals out there, but you’d hardly know it listening to the prevailing sentiment on the left.

When I first came to this country in 1961 there wasn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats. I really liked that because where I came from there was a huge difference between the progressives (liberals) and the White Supremacists in power. We lived in different suburbs, different schools and different churches, and did not mix with each other although we were all white.

Unfortunately the relentless right-wing war against the Clintons split America into two equal halves that hate each other. It was a very ugly war that forced us to take sides. You probably don't remember that there was a time when we were not separated from each other.

I remember listening to a talk show host after several years into the conservative war against the Clintons, when he said: "You can no longer stay in the middle. You have to take sides. This war against the Clintons is not going to end."

The war against the Clintons was the most damaging thing that has been done to America. We have become two different cultures who do not even live together anymore.

I don't know how we will ever get back together again, but it's very difficult to win wars if the people in your own country are divided.

So when you blame the liberals please remember that your conservatives were the ones who divided this country, not the liberals.

Name:

Smedley

In response to:
I find myself wondering constantly if liberalism isn’t really de facto anti-Americanism.

Message: No doubt about it. They hate individualism. This individualism is what made America great. They hate it, ergo they hate America.

Name:	Scroll Mouse
To:	ET

In response to:
"...The war against the Clintons was the most damaging thing that has been done to America. We have become two different cultures who do not even live together anymore...."

Message:
I find this statement very troubling. More often than not, where there’s smoke there’s fire. Based on that assumption alone there has to be some valid reason for the so-called “war against the Clintons”.

Name:	Watcher in the Woods
To:	"Obesity Fighters" who want to grab land for gov't use
Re:	US Gov't owns millions of acres, mostly posted KEEP OUT

In response to:
CARA sounds innocent and two so-called Republicrats sponsered it. Actually is being dubbed the Get Outdoors (GO) Act, H.R. 4100, although it is more accurately dubbed the "Get Out of Rural America Act."What does H.R. 4100 do? It would allocate $3.125 billion annually -- much of it for government bureaucrats to acquire private lands that have been historically used for hunting and fishing.

Message:
But once the land is under government control, there is no guarantee that such lands would continue to be used for such sporting purposes. When rural land disappears, opportunities for recreation -- especially plinking and hunting -- tend to disappear as well. Republican Representatives Don Young (AK) and George Miller (CA) are the chief sponsors of this legislation. What is their reason for offering this legislation, when there is very limited constitutional authority for the federal government to own land? "Obesity is a public health crisis of the first order," Miller said. "And the Get Outdoors Act is a sensible way to help mitigate that public health crisis." No, that is not a joke. The ostensible reason for the "GO Act" is to help slim Americans’ waistlines by providing more opportunities to hike around the woods. Obesity is costing Americans $100 billion annually because of health-related problems. So the $3.125 billion annually they propose to spend under the "GO Act" is, in their way of thinking, a bargain. The Land Rights Network, which opposes this bill, points out that instead of using the money to steal people's land, they could "buy 15 million really good treadmills for that kind of money and really help folks fighting obesity." LRN is just poking fun, of course, because it knows (and so do we) that there is no authority in the Constitution for setting up a "fat police." The real truth is that the land-grabbing radicals are feverishly trying to use any argument to justify their agenda. In 2001, they tried to justify CARA in the name of helping sportsmen. Last year, when they tried to attach CARA to an energy bill, the implication was that CARA was good for preserving our natural resources. Now they're back... but this time it's being done in the name of reducing obesity. A weighty reason to be sure. But not at the expense of private hunting lands!

Name:	Crunch-n-Munch
To:	George Steinbrenner
Re:	Killing Jack

Message:
Yankee Stadium is no longer selling Cracker Jack. It has decided to sell the favorite snack of the liberal left, Crunch-n-Munch!

Name:

Scroll Mouse

In response to:
"...Yankee Stadium is no longer selling Cracker Jack. It has decided to sell the favorite snack of the liberal left, Crunch-n-Munch!..."

Name:	Mr. Pleasant
Re:	Vince, Hillary, Mena Airport, Systematics., Swiss Bank Accounts

In response to:
Unfortunately the relentless right-wing war against the Clintons split America into two equal halves that hate each other.

Message:
Your setting yourself up as victims gets very, very tiring. The lying slitherings of Bill and Hill brought most of the crap on themselves. If they weren't such sleazebags, there wouldn't have been investigations.

Which is why the right took their eye off the ball with the Clinton planted Monica thing when the Ron Brown murder was much more compelling.

Name:	ET
To:	Scroll

In response to:
I find this statement very troubling. More often than not, where there’s smoke there’s fire. Based on that assumption alone there has to be some valid reason for the so-called “war against the Clintons”.

Name:	Velma Lee's Store
To:	ET
Re:	The Left is more aggressively radical than ever.

In response to:
So when you blame the liberals please remember that your conservatives were the ones who divided this country, not the liberals

Message:
That is pure BS. Not a grain of truth to it. You are mistaken or ill-informed. Please read some American History. (You will not find it in TIKKUN or the New York Times)

I could make a better case that Liberals have cynically and systematically divided this country in the last 100 years, first along economic lines, and eventually along economic and racial and cultural lines, and that they have done so with the premeditated aim of imposing their radical, un-Constitutional, and literally un-American agenda upon the rest of us.

You Liberals are the ones who intend to demolish America and replace her with a monolithic, centrally-administered Socialist commune, not us. You have had considerable success in imposing your agenda by cleverly and tirelessly exploiting the ignorant, the gullible, the lazy, and the opportunistic among us. The hideous 16th amendment was a great milestone in your march to Collectivise America, as was the imposition of "Social Security" and "witholding", followed in turn by the "entitlements" concept and the conversion of public education into a feeding program and propaganda instrument.

But you are not content, and it is clear that your radicalism knows no bounds, and that you will not stop until you have completely destroyed America and replaced her with a all-pervasive Socialist police state. You want to eliminate the Constitution altogether and replace it with a "bill of rights", to be edited at will by democratic fiat unchecked except by the authortitarian fiat of the ruling elite. Thus do you and Liberals in general divide YOURSELVES from me, and from the many tens of millions of Americans who recognize the essential goodness of the original American system and have no desire to be compelled to give it up in return for a Socialist/Statist tyranny.

Name:	Mr. Pleasant
To:	Velma

In response to:
So when you blame the liberals please remember that your conservatives were the ones who divided this country, not the liberals

Name:	ET
To:	Scroll Mouse
Re:	The War Against the Clintons

In response to:
find this statement very troubling. More often than not, where there’s smoke there’s fire. Based on that assumption alone there has to be some valid reason for the so-called “war against the Clintons”.

Message:
If you have a valid reason there was a democratic solution: Vote them Out!

You did not take the democratic route by voting them out of power. Now that was anti-American. You declared war on the Clintons instead of going to the ballot box. You declared war day in and day out for eight years.

Democrats fought against Republicans every single day for eight years. What do you think happens to a country when one half is in a war against the other half for eight years?

Name:	Warrington Carter III
To:	ET
Re:	The War Against Jimmy Carter (?)

In response to:
If you have a valid reason there was a democratic solution: Vote them Out! You did not take the democratic route by voting them out of power. Now that was anti-American. You declared war on the Clintons instead of going to the ballot box. You declared war day in and day out for eight years. Democrats fought against Republicans every single day for eight years. What do you think happens to a country when one half is in a war against the other half for eight years? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:
If you had or have a valid reason to remove an officeholder, there is a Constitutional republican solution: Vote them Out! (if you have the support)

You did not take the Constitutional republican route by voting them out of power. Now that was anti-American. You declared war on the Reagans just as you did on the Nixons (Hillary herself was right in the middle of that) instead of going to the ballot box. You and your sycophants in the media declared war day in and day out, and it has never ended, not to this very day.

Democrats, including especially the CLINTONS and their allies, have fought hard and dirty against duly elected Republicans and Republican office-seekers every single day for decades, in wartime and peacetime, by hook and by crook. What do you think happens to a country when one half is in a war against the other half for decades? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:	Scroll Mouse
To:	ET

In response to:
"...You did not take the democratic route by voting them out of power. ..."

Message:
When you say “you” I am assuming you are referring to the “warriors against the Clintons” as opposed to the royal “you”. Personally, I was one of the suckers who voted for Perot in 92. In 96 I voted for Dole. I consider Bill Clinton to be the luckiest man in the world for being at the right place at the right time in 92. As for 96, his machine was up and running and the circumstances with the economy at the time made him un-stoppable. So in other words, I tried to vote him out. I didn’t have any other viable options. The “you” you referred to ain’t me. And I stand by my post above regarding smoke and fire.

Name:	ET
To:	Warrington Carter III

In response to:
You declared war on the Reagans just as you did on the Nixons (Hillary herself was right in the middle of that) instead of going to the ballot box. You and your sycophants in the media declared war day in and day out, and it has never ended, not to this very day.

Name:	Smedley
To:	SET

In response to:
"...The war against the Clintons was the most damaging thing that has been done to America. We have become two different cultures who do not even live together anymore...."

Methinks that you've blotted out the previous 12 years where the Dems went GaGa trying to sink the Reagan/Bush admins with every sort of nonsense. Methinks that you also forget that Hillary Clinton's sole purpose in 1970 was to sink Richard Nixon.

Name:	Clarion Call
To:	Democrats
Re:	Was against the Clintons

Message:
ET needs some backup here gang.................

Name:	Smedley
To:	SET

In response to:
If you have a valid reason there was a democratic solution: Vote them Out!

Something that the Dems have strived for against every Republican president in my lifetime.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Budget deficits are measured by the National Debt, there is where the rubber meets the road.

Bill Clinton added about 1.6 trillion to the National Debt during his presidency.

Ron, the man, Reagan added about 1.6 trillion to the National Debt during his presidency.

Message:
I can't decide whether this statement is by someone who is just stupid or whether he is a liar. The quote below is taken from the following site: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq12

"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About the Debt (1.2) What is the difference between the debt and the deficit?

The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the Government takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget. (The off-budget items are typically comprised of the two Social Security trust funds, old-age and survivors insurance and disability insurance, and the Postal-Service fund.) Generally, on-budget outlays tend to exceed on-budget receipts, while off-budget receipts tend to exceed off-budget outlays.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling Treasury securities like T-bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public. Additionally, the Government Trust Funds are required by law to invest accumulated surpluses in Treasury securities. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.For information concerning the deficit, visit the Financial Management Service website to view the Monthly Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government."

Clinton was an absolute miracle. Declining on-budget deficits, growing economy, rising stock market which made numerous (too numerous to count) new all time highs, unemployment which was in the 4% range for four years in a row. A miracle is the only word to describe what happened under Clinton.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
I did NOT declare war against Reagan. I voted for Reagan, twice.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
No doubt about it. They hate individualism. This individualism is what made America great.

Message:
Individualism is not an American value as far as politics is concerned. The electoral college is anti-individualism because it relies on the collective (each state) to determine a president. An individual can get the most votes yet lose the election if the collective (electoral college) is in favor of the individual who got the fewest votes.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many individuals reside in a state. That state (collective) still gets two senators.

Furthermore, 75% of the individuals in the country can want a constitutional amendment, but that amendment will not become law unless 75% of the states (collective) so vote.

The collective is alive and well in the political life of the U.S. Individualism is adjourned.

But I actively opposed Reagan when he went crazy with the nukes. Joined all kinds of Nuclear Freeze organizations and even created one of my own.

Name:	Right Wing Pirahna #3
To:	Individual

In response to:
"...unemployment in the 4% range..."

Name:	ET
To:	Ahmad Chalabi falls abruptly out of favor.

In response to:
American soldiers and Iraqi police today raided the offices and home of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician once favored by the Pentagon, and removed computers and documents.

Message:
I find this ouster of Ahmad Chalabi very intriguing. What did he do that made Bush so mad at him? We know Chalabi gave Bush bad information and got paid a ton of money for it, but that's old news. What really bad thing did Chalabi do recently that got him treated like a terrorist?

Name:	Don't be Fooled!
To:	Propaganda from Muslims confuses US/British media
Re:	Fibbing Illigitimates claim 2:45 AM wedding 10 miles out in middle of desert!

In response to:
see full story http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=572812004

Message:
Thu 20 May 2004 printer friendly email article US air strike kills 45 at wedding party, claim Iraqis BY IAN JOHNSTON Key points • Iraqi police official claims 40+ dead in alleged US air strike on wedding • US army reports killing around forty foreign fighters in Iraqi southern border • Controversy could further damage US as first Abu Ghraib soldier sentenced Story in full THE United States-led coalition in Iraq was left reeling last night after local reports said up to 45 wedding guests, including many children, had been killed in an air strike in the west of the country. Lieutenant-Colonel Ziyad al-Jbouri, the deputy police chief of Ramadi, said that between 42 and 45 people were killed in the attack, which took place at about 2:45am in a desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said the dead included 15 children and ten women. Doctors at a hospital in Ramadi put the death toll at 45.

Message:
I wasn't thrilled with Carter either. But Reagan was such a dummy. Even Bush's father got it right when he called Reagan's economic plan, voodoo economics. And look what we got under Bush's father: monstrous deficits. And even though the first lady was (and is) pro-choice, her husband tried his best to take away this choice. And on and on.

Name:	Smedley
To:	spIndividual

In response to:
I can't decide whether this statement is by someone who is just stupid or whether he is a liar.

Message:
Amazing words from one of the most stupid liars on the internet. Didn't you get enough humiliation with your foolish stock market lies the other day?

Name:	Smedley
To:	Don't be Fooled!

Message:
Well, I'm sure the DNC and al-Jazera are having seziurs on this one, but how many "wedding parties" involve scores of military-aged men who just HAPPEN to be firing automatic weapons at about 3am near the Syrian border????

Name:	Smedley
To:	spIndividual

In response to:
I wasn't thrilled with Carter either. But Reagan was such a dummy.

Message:
Ever think the problem wasn't Reagan's IQ? I mean, here's a man who was a successful actor, an EXTREMELY sucessful politician, a spokesman for a fortune 50 company, a man who wrote THOUSANDS of articles on economics and policy, a man who predicted the decline of the Soviet empire in his lifetime (to the hysterical derision of leftists), a man who turned America's decline to optimism.

Maybe the problem is that you're too stupid and arrogant to acknoledge that Reagan wasn't a "dummy". After all, for Reagan to be right (which he was), leftists must have been wrong.

Name:

Smedley

In response to:
He said the dead included 15 children and ten women. Doctors at a hospital in Ramadi put the death toll at 45.

Message:
What are 15 children doing up and out at 3am with people using automatic weapons?

Name:	ET
To:	Individual

In response to:
I wasn't thrilled with Carter either. But Reagan was such a dummy. Even Bush's father got it right when he called Reagan's economic plan, voodoo economics. And look what we got under Bush's father: monstrous deficits. And even though the first lady was (and is) pro-choice, her husband tried his best to take away this choice. And on and on.

Message:
I admire your intelligence and your amazing retention of the details. I envy that.

Name:	ET
To:	Smedley

In response to:
Maybe the problem is that you're too stupid and arrogant to acknoledge that Reagan wasn't a "dummy". After all, for Reagan to be right (which he was), leftists must have been wrong.

Message:
You lost a lot of points when you use language like "too stupid" to refer to the opposition who is not using that juvenile language against you. It immediately lowers your status and disqualifies the content of your message.

Name:	Smedley
To:	spIndividual

In response to:
Individualism is not an American value as far as politics is concerned. The electoral college is anti-individualism because it relies on the collective (each state) to determine a president.

Message:
Forget that you're incapable of making sense, the amazing thing about you is that you seem to whine constantly only about those portions of the Constitution that've worked against Democrats.

You want DEMOCRACY -- Hey, Clinton NEVER got a majority vote, and when Ross Perot drew tens of millions of votes away from GHWB in 1992, you didn't hear the Right whine incessantly about the Constitution.

Name:	web reader
To:	http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=404
Re:	General has ax to grind? Bill: I confess, John did it!

In response to:
US general admits abuse of prisoners widespread 20-May-04THE United States military has investigated 75 cases of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Message:
With 7800 prisoners in Iraq alone, 75 is less than 1%. This is not widespread. This general is excremenful and may have a hidden agenda. Somebody ordered this and somebody wanted it documented for the press. People in a nation where a dictator trained and abused citizens until they looked forward to death. Their Islam tells them to look forward to torture and death esp if captured by infidels who immitate Muslim techiiques.

Name:

Individual lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
I can't decide whether this statement is by someone who is just stupid or whether he is a liar. The quote below is taken from the following site: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq12

Message:
You are a liar. What you posted only disproves your claim that Bill Clinton actually had budget surpluses. Here are the facts:

1994 - 281 Billion
1995 - 281 Billion
1996 - 250 Billion
1997 - 188 Billion
1998 - 113 Billion
1999 - 130 Billion (deficit increase)
2000 - 17 Billion
2001 - 133 Billion (deficit increase)

Each year of the Clinton presidency with each Clinton-era budget, Bill Clinton added billions and billions to the National Debt. There was no surplus. We never started paying down the debt. We never invested the surplus in Treasury securities. Dance all you want, the National Debt numbers reflect the true Budget Deficits, not the lies politicians tell us.

Individual claims the deficits were going down each year of the Clinton, clearly that is another lie.

Name:

Individual lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
Furthermore, 75% of the individuals in the country can want a constitutional amendment, but that amendment will not become law unless 75% of the states (collective) so vote.

Each and every one of the 75% of the individuals live in states. All states are democratically run as mandated by the Constitution. There is no collective.

States vote based on the will of the Individuals in the state. The People speak through their representative like every matter within our system of government (with a few exceptions). States keep densely populated regions from controlling everything.

It sound is though Individual is pining for a system of government where the mob rule.

Name:

Individual lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
Clinton was an absolute miracle...rising stock market

Name:	Bias in the Media
Re:	CBS Smears Kerry Critics.

Message:
» CBS must find it intolerable that a group of Vietnam veterans — including some of John Kerry's former commanding officers — called the candidate "unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief." So on the May 4 CBS Evening News, reporter Byron Pitts smeared the critics: "If you think this is just a group of concerned veterans, think again."

"It's the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam," Pitts proclaimed, presenting a Democratic myth as fact. Vets opposing Kerry had nothing to do with Cleland's loss in 2002, of course, and the GOP campaign against him focused on Cleland's Senate votes, not Vietnam. Pitts ignored all of these facts, but he did reward Democrats with an anti-GOP soundbite from Cleland himself: "If you don't go to war, don't throw rocks at those who did."

Name:

Smedley

Message:
You lost a lot of points when you use language like "too stupid" to refer to the opposition who is not using that juvenile language against you.

Excuse me, but whenever anyone goes around making accusations about someone being "stupid", they open themselves up to the same.l It immediately lowers your status and disqualifies the content of your message.

Hardly! First of all, spIndy constantly refers to the right here as stupid. Want me to repost?

Second, you rarely, if ever, seem to make such admonishments to the leftists to make such comments AND THEY ARE LEGION even when they are first to start the name-calling.

Third --My content makes the same point independently. Reagan was a VERY accompolished man and his writings were impressive. For some jackass with a constant penchant for lying, such as individual, to REPEATEDLY make comments about Reagan being a "dummy" is a situation BEGGING for nake-calling in return.

I asked that about your lying. Why do you lie about issues (such as the Iraqi invasion polls) about relatively RECENT events (it was only a bit more than a year ago) and that are so EASILY checked?

Name:

In response to:
CBS must find it intolerable that a group of Vietnam veterans — including some of John Kerry's former commanding officers — called the candidate "unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief." So on the May 4 CBS Evening News, reporter Byron Pitts smeared the critics: "If you think this is just a group of concerned veterans, think again."

Name:	Smedley
To:	SET

In response to:
admire your intelligence and your amazing retention of the details. I envy that.

Then again, you said the same thing when Navajo Scott wrote his treatise on stem cells. Bone stem cells? skin stem-cells? heh heh heh heh heh heh ...

Name:	Smedley
To:	Individual lies EXPOSED!
Re:	spIndividual

In response to:
I can't decide whether this statement is by someone who is just stupid or whether he is a liar.

Name:	Relative of Morality
To:	ET
Re:	Pardon me Madam but your Bias is showing

In response to:
To individual "I admire your intelligence and your amazing retention of the details. I envy that." To smedley "You lost a lot of points when you use language like "too stupid" to refer to the opposition who is not using that juvenile language against you. It immediately lowers your status and disqualifies the content of your message."

Message:
Unsubstantiated claims from the Left gets High praise..."individual" continually calls rightwingers liars and other names. But calling Reagan a dummy using terms such as voodoo economics and monstrous deficits without any substantive sources to back up his statements rates the equivalent of a standing ovation from you.

Name:	Bystander
To:	ET

In response to:
You lost a lot of points when you use language like "too stupid" to refer to the opposition who is not using that juvenile language against you. It immediately lowers your status and disqualifies the content of your message. Why do you defeat yourself?

Individual: I can't decide whether this statement is by someone who is just stupid or whether he is a liar.

In you little Left Wing relative morality world, it is just dandy for Left Wing liars to call people names and use language like "just stupid" but if Smedley responds in kind, Smedley is the bad guy.

Name:	Smedley
To:	Bystander

In response to:
In you little Left Wing relative morality world, it is just dandy for Left Wing liars to call people names and use language like "just stupid" but if Smedley responds in kind, Smedley is the bad guy.

Message:
Now's about time we should hear the "relative morality" speech about how its okay for the left to lie and call people names, but terrible that we on the right should stoop to their level.

Name:	Individual lies EXPOSED!
To:	ET

In response to:
admire your intelligence and your amazing retention of the details.

Message:
ET, Individual posted numerous lies yesterday and we crammed them back down its throat.

Individual is a compulsive liar that is caught in a lies daily. Individual never provides supporting evidence because most of Individual's claims are bullsh!t made up on the fly.

Individual: I can't decide whether this statement is by someone who is just stupid or whether he is a liar.

ET: [Individual,] I admire your intelligence and your amazing retention of the details. I envy that.

Name:	Smedley
To:	Individual lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
admire your intelligence and your amazing retention of the details.

Individual is a compulsive liar that is caught in a lies daily. Individual never provides supporting evidence because most of Individual's claims are bullsh!t made up on the fly.

Name:	It's...A NEW DARK AGE (let's hire A PR Firm!!)
Re:	We're Rubber...She's Glue

Message:
It's a shame that ET doesn't reprimand her favorite forum bunnies...it would go a long way in Changing The Tone

Name:

Mr. Pleasant

In response to:
I did NOT declare war against Reagan. I voted for Reagan, twice. Message: Egad.

Name:	Right Wing Pirahna #3
To:	Mr. Pleasent

In response to:
"Dipstick here voted against Reagen by not voting for Carter."

WASHINGTON -- Forty-eight Roman Catholic members of Congress have warned in a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., that US bishops will revive anti-Catholic bigotry and severely harm the church if they deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.

I guess in our new world of Democrat relative morality separation of church and state only applies to Republicans.

Name:	Doug Hagin
Re:	The Media As America's Enemy

Message:
The American media has long been accused of being slanted and biased in their coverage of the news by Conservatives. The media naturally has been stalwart in their denials of any sort of bias or Liberal leaning views in their coverage of news stories. Whether or not the media is a tool of the Liberal left might be open for debate but the coverage of the Iraqi war has really settled the argument hasn’t it?

Frankly the media, at least the majority of it, has done a miserable job of reporting events in Iraq. Well to be fair to the media let it be said that they have only done a miserable job of reporting any good news about America’s efforts in Iraq. The bad news? Well that has flowed freely and often out of Iraq.

American casualties have been reported as of course they should be. The casualties of those terrorists we are fighting, however, have gone largely unreported. The majority of news reports have listed the number of American soldiers killed in every encounter with the enemy. Again this is fine and right. The media has a job to do, and that job is to report American casualties. Yet the enemy casualties in those battles are almost always left out of the news. Why?

Doesn’t the media have a duty to report casualties of both sides? Especially since reporting the casualties of only one side will offer a decidedly unbalanced view of the war and how successful our troops are? Could the media have an agenda which their near refusal to report Iraqi losses in battle exposes?

Certainly day after day after day of reporting only American casualty with no mention of Iraqi losses paint a dreary picture of the American success in Iraq. Especially since our losses are far, far, fewer than Iraqi losses. Again the question must be asked of our media, why not report all the casualties?

The media has a duty, if they are interested in reporting the facts as they claim, to report all the news out of Iraq. Yet only the negative news seems to find it’s way on to our nightly news and newspapers. The opening of schools and return of essential services to the Iraqi people go largely unmentioned. Again why? A recent protest in Iraq, a pro-American protest, went by with no real attention by the media, why?

The setbacks in Iraq should be reported. After all the freedom of our press is one of the key ingredients of our free society. But the stories of our victories and successes should be reported as well. To do any less that that amounts to undercutting our military’s efforts. It also has to be said that this reporting only bad news is hurting support for the war at home.

Not to say the media has a duty to drum up support for the war at all. They certainly do not. But they also do not have a duty to report the news in such a way as to drum up feelings against the war.

Certainly the coverage of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by a few of our troops has been blown so far out of proportion by our media that any question of how the media feels about America and this war really seems silly to ask.

Yes the abuse which has been reported should have been reported. The U.S. military released the information on the abuses and their investigations back in January, yet the media really saw no need to report this news. Until those pictures were made public that is. Only then did the media decide to release their dogs of war.

And release them they have. The reporting of these images out of Iraqi prisons is being spun by the media in a manner which goes far beyond reporting the facts. The media has, truth be told, attempted to create some moral equivalency between the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, many of whom are terrorists and who have attacked and killed our troops, and the torture which Saddam visited upon Iraq for decades.

Naturally Left-wing demagogues like Ted Kennedy have attempted to make our troops out to be as bad or worse than terrorists, we have come to expect such lunacy from him. But the media has done tremendous damage to our troops safety by their coverage style on this issue.

Yes, what was done in those prisons was wrong. Yes it is an embarrassment to our armed forces. But it pales when compared to the beheading of Nick Berg, or homicide bombings by terrorists in Iraq. There is no moral equivalency here. Our troops humiliating Iraqi prisoners, again many of which are terrorists and have killed and attacked our troops, comes nowhere near the deeds of our enemies. Yet our own media seems intent on convincing us that it does.

Our troops were out of line but they did not behead anyone on camera, they did not feed anyone into a wood chipper, or pour acid on anyone. They did not kill or dismember, or rape anyone. The differences between our misdeeds and the atrocities of our enemies is crystal clear for all to see, except for the media of course.

The coverage of this aspect of America’s war on terrorism has been so disdainful we must ask if the media is not only Liberal, which it certainly is, but perhaps anti-American as well. The media has a job, to report news, yet they seem more intent on banging their drums of discontent than doing their job!

Name:	Smedley
Re:	Monsewer Kerry

Message:
Did anyone catch Kerry's bit about American's not doing enough to conserve energy the other day.

That from the man who owns 5-6 big houses, a small fleet of cars and a family jet.

Name:	Nellie Blye
To:	ET & Forum
Re:	SO GLAD YOU ARE BACK, ET !! We Missed You !!

In response to:
Why don't we launch a media advertisement campaign, to sell the image of all the "good" we are doing in Iraq? And try to present the image of American efforts in a good light?

Wishful Thinking, ET. The facts are that we bombed and nearly destroyed their country, with thousands maimed and killed. We are continuing to bomb them, shoot them and imprison them, and the court martial hearings on TV have exposed that high up levels in our govt gave orders for us to do barbaric methods of interrogation.

Even the uneducated masses of Iraquis can see & hear & think. They see their nation is worse off than it was before. As for "giving them Democracy", most Americans fail to realize that they DID vote for Saddam. He WAS their elected leader. And he did not make women wear veils or hide under burquas. He did allow women to have a college education. He did give many rights to women, there. He was much more enlightened than Iranians and Afghani Talibans.

But let's say we could go to an Advertising Agency and ask them to develop a Hype Media Advertising Campaign that painted a rosey picture, of American G.I.'s giving candy and teddy bears to Iraqui children, & building schools and homes for the refugees.

First, the Ad Companies have to adhere to certain rules of "Truth in Advertising", which could not be met by the actual facts. For we HAVE to build schools only because we previously bombed them. Not a very big Promo there.

Second, while media crews were out trying to film all the good we did, they would have to be wearing better armor and flak vests than most of our soldiers, which would not be easy for them to "not notice" or ignore. While filming all the wonderful "good" we were doing, our film crews would have to duck helicopter attacks at a wedding, or one of our "missiles" going astray, & risk getting killed. It would end up showing more devastation on film than good.

The simple Truth, is that this war was wrong from the start, -- and I do recall that world-wide people swarmed out into the streets in RECORD NUMBERS to PROTEST THAT WAR before it ever began. Our allies had already shown their contempt for the idea of bombing a nation before the site inspectors had even finished their job. Saddam WAS letting them in, to anyplace they asked, even his own private homes and palaces. Saddam told Dan Rather in a TV interview in Febr 2003, (3 wks before Shock & Awe) that he never was an enemy of the United States, that he HAD disarmed, & that there was no reason for any conflict to ensue between our two nations. Saddam asked to have a TV satellite public debate with Bush to discuss their viewpoints & let the world know how each of the leaders stood. Saddam said all he wanted was Peace, & stated several times that he had never intended or tried to attack America or our people, that he had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had disarmed.

IF BUSH HAD THAT DEBATE with Saddam in Febr 2003, instead of laughing it off, there would not ever have been any reason to go to war, --- none of the billions of $$ would have been spent on bombing a disarmed nation that had never posed any threat to us, --& then Billions $$$ more to build back up the chaos, after our stupid crazy bombing.

I DO WISH that some talented people could have gone over to Iraq and filmed that nation BEFORE the bombing, to see the real Iraqui people in their normal habitat, how they actually lived, interviewed them to see how much real freedom they had, ask how their elections worked, & see the culture, understand more about Islam, study the life of Saddam, BEFORE any idea of destroying the Garden of Eden and ancient site of Babylon the Great, part of the very cradle of civilization. If we believe the Bible, in Genesis it states God walked there with Adam & Eve, & there was the "Tree of Life", and "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

It also said God kicked Adam & Eve out of the Garden after they ate of the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil. God said they must leave, lest they also eat of the Tree of Life and learn how to be like gods, and Live Forever. ------- I wonder if the seed of the Tree of Life still grows somewhere in Iraq? And if we have bombed it?

Name:

Individual

In response to:
This is Individual's idea of a rising stock market:

Message:
Evasive right wing extremist. When Clinton took over, the DOW was at about 3,250. When he left office, the DOW was at about 10,600. That's what I call a rising stock market. And more: During that meteoric rise, the DOW achieved an all-time, weekly high 116 times. In addition, the DOW was up, year to year, for 7 of the 8 years under Clinton.

Contrast that with Dubya. During his reign, the DOW has gone nowhere: it is still below the number that it was when Dubya took office. There have been no (nada) all-time weekly (or even daily) highs. However, there were some notable lows under Dubya. The DOW tanked to about 7,800. Under Dubya, there have been two years of down markets, and one year of an up market. If this year turns out to be an up market, we will break even under Dubya.

We Americans expect things to be better (much better) than they are under Dubya. We should shoot for the remarkable numbers that we got under Clinton, miraculous actually. We deserve no less.

Name:	Mulligan O' Manitowoc
To:	ET
Re:	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In response to:
Maybe the problem is that you're too stupid and arrogant to acknowledge that Reagan wasn't a "dummy". After all, for Reagan to be right (which he was), leftists must have been wrong.

Message: You lost a lot of points when you use language like "too stupid" to refer to the opposition who is not using that juvenile language against you. It immediately lowers your status and disqualifies the content of your message. Why do you defeat yourself?

Name:	Tinfoil Hat Detector
To:	Blye Nellie

In response to:
First, the Ad Companies have to adhere to certain rules of "Truth in Advertising", which could not be met by the actual facts. For we HAVE to build schools only because we previously bombed them.

Message:
What a load of Barbra Streisand... "Truth In Advertising"? so every weight loss product works?...drinking beer makes you sexy? and driving the right car gets you the promotion you've always wanted? PUHLEEEZE....

Sure WE specifically target schools...'cause everyone knows they're in league with the NEA a known terrorist organization (sarcasm off)

Name:

Apocolypse Now

In response to:
Second, while media crews were out trying to film all the good we did, they would have to be wearing better armor and flak vests than most of our soldiers, which would not be easy for them to "not notice" or ignore. While filming all the wonderful "good" we were doing, our film crews would have to duck helicopter attacks at a wedding, or one of our "missiles" going astray, & risk getting killed. It would end up showing more devastation on film than good.

Message:
Second the death rate in Iraq is less than that of Los Angeles...the horror...

Name:	Gonga, Lord of the P.E. Class
To:	Smedley
Re:	Nellie B. Lie

In response to:
Individual is a compulsive liar that is caught in a lies daily. Individual never provides supporting evidence because most of Individual's claims are bullsh!t made up on the fly.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Why don't we launch a media advertisement campaign, to sell the image of all the "good" we are doing in Iraq? And try to present the image of American efforts in a good light?

Message:
Completely misses the point. We know of the good things we are doing in Iraq--and Afghanistan. It was a good thing to get rid of Saddam. The only caveat to this statement is that a more repressive, religiously "inspired" government might take over. It is a good thing to try to "install" a democracy. It is a good thing to rebuild Iraq. All of these things, and more, are good.

The bad thing is that, unlike the war in Afghanistan, the American people have gained nothing from the Iraq war. Maybe Cheney's old company has gained something. But the average American has gained nothing. And it is not known at this time whether the people in Iraq will actually gain in the long run. And we have lost a lot--and are still losing.

I would love to see the religious flake Shiites defeated and put in their place so that democracy could flourish in Iraq. But the real world says that the religious flakes will be the power in Iraq for decades to come, maybe centuries. Bush and his cohorts knew this, or should have known this, before they contemplated the war. Bush, et al, should have known that the war in Iraq would take away from the justified war in Afghanistan. We Americans are well off, no doubt. But there is a limit to our capacity for sacrifice in persons and dollars.

I am all for segments showing the gains in Iraq for the people there. These should be balanced with the warlike occurences, if possible. It is difficult for me to balance the loss of American life and dollars in Iraq against gains by the Iraqi people, especially when our security was not threatened.

Message:
I know. Sites like OMB and Bureau of the Public Debt are just fakes. Historical prices of the DOW taken from Yahoo are also not reliable. Sorry.

Name:	Just a question
Re:	Why Are Dems so racist?

Message:
Hollings defends his statements on Israel

Column alleging Bush invaded Iraq to please Jews draws accusations of anti-Semitism

WASHINGTON — In the face of charges of anti-Semitism, U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings on Tuesday defended a newspaper column he wrote alleging President Bush went to war in Iraq to defend Israel and please American Jews.

Hollings declined a request for an interview Tuesday, but he released a letter defending his comments and calling “ridiculous” any criticism of them as anti-Semitic.

One S.C. Jewish leader was “horrified” by Hollings’ writings. The nation’s most prominent Jewish civil rights organization called on Hollings to renounce his charges.

“The whole foreign policy of the United States is based on Israel? What kind of ridiculous statement is that?” said Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia’s Beth Shalom synagogue. “It makes him anti-Israel. It’s anti-Semitic ... it’s dangerous.”

Throughout his 38-year Senate career, Hollings, a Charleston Democrat, has apologized for remarks that have been decried as callous toward Jews, blacks, Japanese and other groups.

In the column, published this month in The State and two other S.C. newspapers, Hollings wrote that Israeli officials had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.”

He also wrote that Bush “came to office with one thought — re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together, and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.”

Hollings also named three people as particularly responsible for Bush’s zeal to invade Iraq — Richard Perle, the former chairman of a board that advises Pentagon leaders; assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. All are Jewish.

Abraham Foxman, president of The Anti-Defamation League, urged Hollings to renounce his latest comments.

“This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government,” Foxman wrote in a letter to Hollings.

Foxman said he knows some will dismiss Hollings’ choice of words as simply Hollings being Hollings.

“To them we say one doesn’t take bigotry in stride,” Foxman said. “He is one out of 100 (senators). These are 100 of the most prominent people in the country. To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such classical anti-Semitism. It’s sad.”

In place of a statement, Hollings’ staff made available a letter to a constituent — whom they would not identify — who had written to Hollings to take issue with his column.

“It is my experienced opinion from supporting Israel here in the Senate for almost 38 years, that diplomacy and negotiation is the route we should take, not the military,” Hollings wrote. “I could cite numerous quotes to support my mentioning Perle, Wolfowitz and Krauthammer and otherwise give quotes of distinguished leaders of the State of Israel that support my position.”

Hollings wrote that calling his opinion “anti-Jewish stereotyping or scapegoating is ridiculous.”

U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint, R-Greenville, wrote a letter, that was published in The State, after he read Hollings’ piece. DeMint called the column “bizarre and, at worst, chilling.”

DeMint is seeking the GOP nomination for the Senate seat from which Hollings will retire next year.

DeMint said Tuesday he has refrained from criticizing Hollings but felt he had to respond because Hollings had so mischaracterized the president’s decision to go to war.

“I don’t know how anyone sitting in all those briefings for all those years could possibly bring it down to the motive for going into Iraq having anything to do with a focus on our friendship with Israel,” DeMint said. “It’s something Congress voted heavily in favor of doing.”

Hollings voted in 2002 to give Bush permission to attack Iraq but later said he was misled and that the war is a mistake comparable to American action in Vietnam.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
that US bishops will revive anti-Catholic bigotry and severely harm the church if they deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.

Message:
Kerry and other democrats won't introduce legislation to make abortions illegal in the first 2 trimesters. Kerry and other democrats won't introduce legislation to restrict abortions in the first 2 trimesters. What has this got to do with communion?

Name:	Mr. Hooten
To:	ET
Re:	Theda Bara's underwear on my head

In response to:
Voted twice for Reagan

Message:
How long do you suppose that Ysrael would last if thrown upon the tender mercies of the "United Nations"?

Name:	America
To:	Individual
Re:	Le Scam Grand

In response to:
We should shoot for the remarkable numbers that we got under Clinton, miraculous actually. We deserve no less. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:	The Real Deal
To:	Ina Gada Vidual

In response to:
Kerry and other democrats won't introduce legislation to make abortions illegal in the first 2 trimesters. Kerry and other democrats won't introduce legislation to restrict abortions in the first 2 trimesters. What has this got to do with communion?

Message:
Kerry claims to be a member of a club. This club has rules. Publically posted rules. Kerry goes way beyond those rules. If he has a problem with the rules...don't be a member of the club.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
You want DEMOCRACY -- Hey, Clinton NEVER got a majority vote, and when Ross Perot drew tens of millions of votes away from GHWB in 1992, you didn't hear the Right whine incessantly about the Constitution.

Message:
Misses the point, as usual. Right wingers (I'll leave off the extremists although I am sure I am correct) try to change the subject. It is a fact that an individual can get the most votes from individuals in this country and still lose the election. It is a fact that a constitutional amendment can get 75% of the votes of individuals and still lose if 75% of the state legislatures don't approve. These are the facts. My value judgment related to these facts is "unfair to individuals."

Name:	Weezer Choate
To:	Invididyouall
Re:	Brightly-painted oriental screens once graced the homes of the wealthy.

Message:
Kerry won't introduce legislation to make euthanasia mandantory for people over 62 1/2. What has that got to do with bicycle brakes? What has that got to do with bicycle brakes?

Name:

...

Message:
You mean the Vatican is trying to restrict our bicycle brakes? Holy Toledo.

Name:	The Masses
To:	J. Kohn Kerry
Re:	Apres Catholic; a Jew of a sort... A French-Irish sort of New England Jew?

In response to:
Kerry won't introduce legislation to make euthanasia mandantory for people over 62 1/2

Name:

E to the T

In response to:
Right wingers (I'll leave off the extremists although I am sure I am correct)

Message:
veiled insults are still insults....and we all know you think you sure are correct.

Name:	Chart Reader
To:	GRAPH POSTING GUY

In response to:
Your graphs posted which show Dow Jones Industrials during various years, (1975-2004) their downward & upward trends.

Message:
I was grateful to see those charts, since I do not have access to that kind of data. Very nice of you.

So the CHART clearly shows that under Reagan/Bush it only went up from 1,000 to 3,500 (1980-1992)

But during CLINTON years, it went UP from 3,500 to 11,000 (1992-2000) An amazing jump UP of 7,500 points!!

And during BUSH-W, it started at 11,000, & ended up at 10,500 (2000-2004) (Net effect of going DOWN 500 points).

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Kerry claims to be a member of a club. This club has rules. Publically posted rules. Kerry goes way beyond those rules. If he has a problem with the rules...don't be a member of the club.

Message:
I don't think Jesus would look kindly on the "club" analogy. Where are the rules which say that if you are a Catholic, you must introduce legislation to make abortions illegal in the first two trimesters? As long as Kerry doesn't advocate abortion to some woman or practice it himself, he's a member in good standing. He's definitely not promoting abortion. He simply won't introduce legislation to give the legislature the power over the choice of a woman and her doctor in the first 2 trimesters.

Name:	ET
To:	Smedley

In response to:
Now's about time we should hear the "relative morality" speech about how its okay for the left to lie and call people names, but terrible that we on the right should stoop to their level.

Message:
Yes, Smedley dear, I held you to a higher standard, but you have such a hard time living up to it :)

Name:	John Kerry. I was in Viet Nam.
To:	Union Workers, Teacher Educators, Public Servants
Re:	Who are The Wealthy? Those with PROPERTY!

In response to:
23,000 classified you as RICH

Message:
In addition to my mandantory Volunteer Euthanasia bill to strengthen Social Security, I will introduce an adjustment to the inheritance tax schedules on the wealthy. Under my new bill, the Life's Changes Social Responsibility, Fairness And Equity Act, rates shall be set at 100% of all estates in excess of $7500.00. $7500.00 is quite enough to plant grandpa when he reaches 62 1/2. This will further strengthen Our Social Security while providing new funding for tiny classrooms with big-button computer keyboards for big fat children.

Name:	The Real Deal
To:	Ina Gad Vidual

In response to:
As long as Kerry doesn't advocate abortion to some woman or practice it himself, he's a member in good standing. He's definitely not promoting abortion.

Message:
Kerry definitely does promote abortion...and you well know it. His current statement is just another nuance ie attempt to sound as if he's on both sides of the issue.

Name:	Desmond Thritu
To:	Individual Liar
Re:	Pre-date Christianity

In response to:
Where are the rules which say that if you are a Catholic, you must introduce legislation to make abortions illegal in the first two trimesters

Name:

Individual

In response to:
GRAPHS show Clinton had much better effect on Dow Jones

Message:
Yes indeed. The data show exactly that. Under Reagan, we did pretty well--about half as well as under Clinton. Under Bush's father, we did OK also. But nothing like Clinton. And under Dubya, it has been a disaster. We Americans deserve much better.

Name:	Relative of Morality
To:	ET
Re:	Equal Treatment

In response to:
Yes, Smedley dear, I held you to a higher standard, but you have such a hard time living up to it :) Should I lower the bar for you, dear? How low do you to go?

Message:
How about RAISING the bar for "individual", "Hillary Supporter" and "Bordertex"?

Name:

Individual

In response to:
How about RAISING the bar for "individual", "Hillary Supporter" and "Bordertex"?

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Kerry definitely does promote abortion...and you well know it. His current statement is just another nuance ie attempt to sound as if he's on both sides of the issue.

Message:
I believe, but do not know for sure, that Kerry is anti-abortion--as am I.

Message:
Yesirree, nobody could cook the books(and kids at Waco) like Clinton and his cronies...

Name:	ET
To:	Mr. Hooten

In response to:
How long do you suppose that Ysrael would last if thrown upon the tender mercies of the "United Nations"?

Message:
A lot of lefties and most of the world, including the United Nations that supports suicide bombing, would love to make Israel the scapegoat again. They want to feed the crocodile in the hope that it won't eat them.

I just cringe when my intelligent liberal friends tell me that all we have to do to appease the jihadists is to sacrifice Israel and all the Muslims will be so happy they won't harm us anymore. Magical thinking.

These people are trying to find an easy way out. Confronting the crocodile is just too overwhelming. They're putting their heads in the sand.

Name:	Noted
To:	Liar Individual
Re:	Mr. Toad's Motorcar

In response to:
It is a fact that an individual can get the most votes from individuals

Message:
What a lying ass you are! If more than ONE individual votes for a candidate, that candidate has the support of a GROUP.

Name:	Smedley
To:	SET

In response to:
Yes, Smedley dear, I held you to a higher standard, but you have such a hard time living up to it :)

Message:
No, but I do believe that you should live up to the standards you set for others.

Name:	Thritu
To:	Idiot Individual
Re:	Ten Commandments

In response to:
I looked at them. So what?

Message:
Might as well set a typewriter before a flatworm and expect a thesis on cultural and religious abhorrence of murder.

Name:

...

In response to:
No, but I do believe that you should live up to the standards you set for others. How low do you to go? Certainly not to the level of the lefties that you coddle.

Name:	Smedley
To:	SET

Maybe your "intelligent liberal friends" aren't as intelligent as you suspect. My "intelligent liberal friends" all seem to understand intrinsically that appeasement won't work. Seriously!

Or they just cannot bring themselves to believe that there are people who will try to kill you for simply being. Most Jews learned this 60 years ago, but apparently not all lessons stay.

Confronting the crocodile is just too overwhelming. They're putting their heads in the sand.

Name:

Chart Reader lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
Under REAGAN, it was mostly flatline (from 1980-1985)

Why don't people like you go to MSN.com and run your own charts before you spew forth your lies?

Name:	Now Rentable at a Video Store Near You!
To:	forum
Re:	Muhammad's Daughter

In response to:
From the ashes of the Moor Invasion rises an unimagined evil.

Message:
Is she the blindly ambitious third wife of the Sheik Al Frabar, Chairman of the Iraqi Council?

Is she the bleached blond Senator wife of a former President of the United States?

White House Press aide Georgie Stomptedonallofus gets the news flash that Muhammad's daughter- one of four influential women in Washington--will rise to power in the next presidential election. When the killing begins, Georgie rushes against time--a brutal Left wing conspiracy--to expose the heiress of the world's most wvil legacy.

Name:	The Catholic Club Rules
To:	Any Politician Bashers (& anti-Kerry folks)

In response to:
Kerry must obey the rules of the club, or take the consequences.

Message:
Kerry is 61 years old. THERE WERE no rules about abortion when Kerry was born, or until he was in his early 30's.

Abortion did not become a political issue until 1972 or 1973 (Roe vs Wade) and abortion was legalized.

So Kerry had been a Catholic for at least 30 years before there was any controversy about freedom of choice.

As a politician, you are an elected "representative" of the people, including single women, married women, & people of ALL religions, not just the Catholics. Representing this broad spectrum of opinion is his duty, & he did it.

I am tired of the right wing painting the Pro-Choice movement as being pro-abortion, and for baby killing. It is a deliberate distortion of the truth, and only done for the political purpose of smearing. Pro-Choice people do NOT CARE whether you want to have 80 children, or 5 children, or none at all. We do not TELL people what to believe or what to do with their own lives or their own bodies. We believe in the sacred American concept that Women have just as much Right to Choose their life and their reproduction activity as the Men do. We should not all live our lives being the victim of a stray sperm, while the men blithely run down the street, sewing their seeds on 100 more women.

It is due to the careless, irresponsible men in our society that abortion becomes necessary. In the 50's if a man impregnated a woman, (& that was very rare, since our society at that time preferred that a woman was a virgin when she married, so promiscuity seldom happened), if a man happened to impregnate a woman, he immediately offered to marry her, & save her good name & reputation. (Nothing was worse in the 50's than to get a bad reputation for being a slut or an "easy lay"). For example, you should buy or rent some Doris Day movies, showing her with Rock Hudson or Cary Grant. All the women did in those days was kiss. So the men were honorable and the women were chaste. Births of illegitimate children were extremely low. ALSO, it is worth while to note here, that Abortion was still illegal then.

Fast Forward to the sexual revolution of the late 60's and early 70's, when everybody slept with anybody they could find. Illegitimate rates went thru the roof, and lots of innocent unwanted children were born. At the same time, the Viet Nam War created a society where drugs were found everywhere. It was a mess. So along comes Roe vs Wade, that allowed the little girl who got pregnant while smoking a joint one night, given to her by her junkie boyfriend, had the chance to get an abortion. It kept unwanted children from being born, to be abused by junkie fathers, and it also cut down the brain damage of Drug infected DNA.

Most of the girls who show up at abortion clinics are just scared little teen-agers, whose boyfriend promised that he loved her, & then dumped her the minute she ended up pregnant. Also, mothers who already have 5 or 6 children & can't afford any more. Or those who have birth defects that are genetically inherited & don't want to risk that. Most of it is caused by irresponsible males who just shoot off their sperm for target practice, but don't want anything to do with the living person they are screwing. It is a sick world, but the women should not have to pay the price for all this, while the men blithely escape it all.

It took women 144 years to get the VOTE, and it took another 52 years to get Freedom of Choice over their own bodies and lives. THE STRUGGLE lasted 196 years !!! And we will never go back to letting strangers make all of our most private decisions for us. NEVER. If you truly think that total strangers should tell ANY woman what she should do, then you are a Fascist. Her decisions, right or wrong, are between HER and HER GOD. Let HIM be the Judge, & you just pay attention to your OWN sins, which are aplenty.

Hurray for Kerry, who is a true representative of our rights, and who understands the REAL concept of Freedom of Choice. For Freedom of Choice is the summation of the whole concept of Democracy. A Truly Free People with Liberty and Justice for ALL. And the Pursuit of Happiness for All.

Name:	Smedley
To:	Chart Reader lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
Under REAGAN, it was mostly flatline (from 1980-1985)

Message:
To be fair, the Reagan-era chart might be considered "flatline" ... if you hold it at a 45 degree angle.

Name:

Chart Reader lies EXPOSED!

In response to:
But during CLINTON years, it went UP from 3,500 to 11,000 (1992-2000) An amazing jump UP of 7,500 points!!

Message:
The point is simple. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with stock market growth. There was nothing Bill Clinton did that affected the stock market in any major way. The growth started under Ronald Reagan based on his wide-sweeping reforms. Bill Clinton got blowjobs from employees in the Oval Office while the Reagan/Bush recovery chugged on.

While the DOW peaked at 11,500+ under Clinton, the DOW was going down in Clinton's last years losing over 1,000 points. Clinton did nothing related to the recovery but he did preside over the end of the longest recovery in US history (that began nearly two years before Clinton was president. BTW: in 1992 Clinton/Gore called the second year of what was to be the longer US recovery "the worst economy in 50 years”. Remember, Democrats lie)

Name:	Velma Lee's Store
To:	Metzger's Milk
Re:	"It's sure good! "