P.M.D.'s — People of Mass Destruction

OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Search for P.M.D.'s

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

ometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Time.com reported last week that the F.B.I. had alerted law enforcement offices around America to be on the lookout for possible suicide bombers. Police forces were told to keep an eye out for people wearing bulky overcoats in the heat of summer, people with electric wires sticking out of their clothing, or people smelling of chemicals. Personally, if I see someone trailing electric wires, I am definitely calling the cops.

Unfortunately, such bizarre warnings could be the first of many, because while we have not found any W.M.D. in Iraq, we have found there a disturbing number of P.M.D.'s — people of mass destruction. Consider the car-bombing murder in Baghdad on Monday of Ezzedine Salim, the Shiite politician and president of the Iraqi Governing Council. According to news reports, Mr. Salim was in a five-car convoy of Nissan Patrols waiting in a line of cars to enter the Green Zone, the secure American complex in the heart of Baghdad. Suddenly, a Volkswagen Passat jumped out of the line of cars, raced toward Mr. Salim's vehicle and blew up next to it, incinerating everything in the area.

We're so shell-shocked, we just treat this as another day, another suicide bomb in Iraq. But we need to think about this. My rough estimate is that there have been 50 to 75 suicide bomb attacks in Iraq in the last year. So the first question I have is this: Where are all these suicide bombers coming from? How do you just get these people off the shelf?

I don't buy it myself, but one can plausibly argue that 37 years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank have made Palestinians so crazy that scores of them would have volunteered for suicide bombing missions over the last few years. But the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq is only a year old, and the suicide bombings started there within a few months of U.S. forces' arriving, to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's warped tyranny. So what does that mean? It means that some group or groups have the ability to recruit a large pool of people willing to kill themselves in attacks against American or Iraqi targets on short notice — and we don't have a clue how this process works.

We don't know who these people are — although reports suggest they are coming from Europe, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia — how the underground railroad that gets them from their local mosques to Iraq operates, how they connect up with the operating cells in Iraq and how they get wired and indoctrinated for suicide missions.

"I don't think the P.M.D.'s are really a product of local Iraqi resentment against us," says Raymond Stock, an expert on Arabic literature and media based in Cairo. "They are mainly imported cookie-cutter killers, created by a combination of Arab mass media, certain extremist elements in Muslim culture, and some very shrewd recruiting by Al Qaeda and its ilk. When young, angry, futureless, sexually repressed people are taught that death is a permanent vacation of guilt-free pleasure, and they see it glorified in countless videos, all you need is a willing truck driver to ferry them over the border from Syria, Jordan, Turkey or Saudi Arabia and presto — a human bomb."

Whoever "they" are, they seem to be getting more and more sophisticated. What's worse is that these people are utter nihilists. At least Hamas has a stated political goal of ridding Palestine of all Jews and setting up an Islamic state there. It even offers social services. The people running the suicide operations in Iraq, whether they are working independently or are just one organization, don't even claim credit, let alone make any demands. They just want to ensure that America fails to produce anything decent in Iraq and they are ready to sacrifice all Iraqis for that end.

Extremely sophisticated nihilists, able to organize multiple suicide bombings right under our noses — for a year. It's another sign that we never had enough troops in Iraq, and have failed to train and equip a meaningful Iraqi police force to secure Iraq's borders or its interior — which is the necessary foundation for any decent outcome in Iraq.

But it's another reason we need to shift authority and security in Iraq to Iraqis as soon as they can handle it. Only they will have the ears needed to pick up the accents of P.M.D.'s, the eyes needed to know who doesn't belong and the smell for where these rotten apples are being stored to solve this P.M.D. mystery. And only they will have the words in Arabic to delegitimize this suicide trend.

We must shut this play down before it comes to a theater near us. source...

wow - i guess people can't stand the fact that the Bin Laden relatives were the only people allowed to travel out of the USA when all planes were grounded shortly after the attacks of 9/11.

does anyone wonder why that was?

and why is General Zinni saying, on record, that the Iraq policy is a total failure? or as he put it, we can stay the course right over the Niagara Falls.

if you're wondering what you'll be doing at the end of the Summer, go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org

hopefully, we'll see you there!

DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO RALLY ON THE EVE OF THE RNC!

Call NY Mayor Bloomberg to Protest the City's Denial of UFPJ's Permit.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Parks Department have refused our application for a permit to rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park, the sight of huge political, cultural and religious events in the past. We urge you to protest the city's outrageous denial of our right to rally on August 29th. Four of NYC’s major dailies have editorialized in our favor. Now we need you, people from every corner of the country, to flood the offices of the Mayor of NYC and the Parks Commissioner with phone calls and faxes.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg: phone 212-788-3000 fax 212-788-9711
Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe: phone 212-360-1305 fax 212-360-1345

Click here to find out more...

Name:	Stan Fogleberg
To:	forum and the listening world
Re:	Why Muslim invasion is ongoing

In response to:
Why were the allegence cluses eliminated in the immigration laws? To allow Muslims to immigrate. Why were Muslims so important? ACLU and trial lawyers were suing to get allegence thrown out. Why? Because they are traitors and don't care.

Editor's note: The following commentary was excerpted from the current edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE PARTY OF TREASON."

Imagine you've got a Muslim neighbor who is actually a radical, but hasn't yet revealed to you his inner radical thoughts. He may seem like a nice family-oriented, hard-working, reliable guy, but then at a barbecue he tells his private view that the "worldwide Jewish movement" is the embodiment of evil, and that Israel must be destroyed.

One moment you think he's a reasonably normal guy, and a moment later you realize he lives in a very dark world. Still, there he is, smiling at you while he flips a burger and offers you another cold soda.

That's what it felt like for me recently to read a quote by the French ambassador to Britain. According to Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, the ambassador said Israel was a "[expletive] little country ... why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?"

With this as the sentiment of a major ambassador from a major Western country, could a global betrayal of Israel be far off? Indeed, a European Commission poll reported that 59 percent of its democracies thought that Israel was the greatest threat to world peace.

Skeptics might ask how the world could possibly turn against Israel with America as her staunch ally? After all, we are the world's only superpower. The answer lies within America itself, specifically the Democratic Party – the "blue state" half of the country. A paradigm shift is occurring – one that will affect not only Israel's security, but America's as well. Howard Dean's famous comment about not taking sides between Israel and the Palestinians was directed at the many radical Palestinian sympathizers in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," a group that will become increasingly vocal as the war on terror continues.

Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is alive and well as a political force – and so is appeasement. The two will combine, and my Democratic Party will soon betray Israel. It may not be an overt betrayal. It may come in a thousand cuts rather than with a single blow. But it will come.

All this is more than a hunch on my part. It has to do with core values. One party has them, and the other doesn't. The Democratic Party's leaders may look like traditional Americans. They may say they support Israel. They may "stand with our troops" in Iraq. They may go to church and take communion. They may even sing, "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps – but increasingly their inner thought life is not what it seems to be.

Inside they seethe at "red state" America. We watch the weird, angry behavior of prominent Democrats like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean or even John Kerry and we scratch our heads in wonder. Who are these people? What are they thinking? What caused all this anger, and why is it directed at fellow Americans? The furious fringe is taking over the party. They are solidified in their sense of victimhood. They aren't looking for compromise, but for total victory – revenge almost – in fulfilling their vision for a new America, one that has nothing to do with biblical Christianity or Judaism, the pumping heart of true Americanism.

Last November, famous Soviet Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky wrote a piece for Commentary Magazine in which he made clear that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism were related. Both express hostility toward the "moral clarity" of Jews and Christians and their shared love of liberty. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is increasingly evident both globally and locally – and you'll find them both in my angry Democratic Party!

Now here's the sobering reality: Defeating "angry leftists" at the polls does not solve our problem any more than disarming a crazy person makes him a safe roommate. If I am right that the Democrats (under current leadership) are no longer an American party in any traditional sense, then this has massive implications for our two-party system – which depends on mutual respect and common goals. It's as if Israel were forced to accept radical Palestinians from Gaza as voting members of the Jewish state. Needless to say, shared power combined with radically opposing agendas would spell disaster.

Democracy is too vulnerable a system to withstand an entrenched and determined hostility, serving no higher purpose than itself. Whether or not you call this treachery hardly matters. The end result is the same – conflict, not compromise.

Everyone is talking about the growing red-state /blue-state divide in America. The words "parallel universe" have even been used to describe the two ethics that dominate our political scene. To put it simply, the red side believes in "one nation, under God," and the blue side doesn't. We think rights come from our Creator, they think rights come from our government. We think there are moral absolutes, they think everything is relative, including the Constitution.

Yes, a paradigm shift is in process, a change in national political character that could destroy any hope of national security – from winning the global war on terror to defending our interests in the Middle East, including Israel, to defending our borders right here at home. The "PC" movement that Newsweek famously called "totalitarian" in 1990 is alive and well – and now controls one of our two major parties.

Witness how my party acted during the Iraq War – undermining the president at every opportunity – even while knowing America's terrorist enemies were taking comfort in words like "liar" and "fraud" and "regime change." It was a very sad thing to watch for those of us who remember a different Democratic Party. At this point, our only hope is for the public to wake up to what is happening. It won't be easy – for reasons I'll explain – but traditional Democrats can turn the tide by blowing the whistle on our own party.

Mainstream Democrats, especially Jews, better start understanding what is at work here. Time is running out. This political party, which still smiles at you and offers you "a cold soda," sadly no longer thinks like you do, or shares the same loyalties.

Now here is our big problem. These Democrats don't need to win elections the usual way. All they need to do is solidify their angry base – then entrench like an occupying army – and wait until Americans are desperate for a political "change." No one can break the stranglehold of a party that has a solid 40-45 percent base (as some experts claim), and few moral limits.

First, there's no oxygen for a third party, at least not for one that has any chance of winning the presidency. But, meanwhile, these anti-traditional Democrats can undermine the system. They can quietly block legitimate votes in the Senate; they can noisily filibuster judges; they can emotionalize debate, use their power to politicize and subvert committees, force damaging scandal hearings – and do all this while networking with their secular media allies to pressure the public. They can campaign perpetually, wage the politics of personal destruction – they can infiltrate, obfuscate, accuse, demoralize and defeat at every opportunity. Call it permanent gridlock – a wrestling stranglehold just waiting for the pin.

Name:	Blowback Franklin
Re:	Don't forget to bring your signs

Message:

Bush Protest Posters

Planning a protest against the Bush Administration and its lies about the Iraq war? Download these bold and easy-to-assemble signs.

The four pdf files below will print out on letter-size paper. You can then take them to a copy shop and have the bottom and top half of each page blown up 200%. This will give you two horizontal 11" x 17" pages. These pages are then stacked to make one side of a 17" x 22" inch sign.

Staple the pages to posterboard/chipboard (with a desk stapler) along the edge. Once assembled, the two sides can be stapled together back to back and a tube can be inserted between and stapled along the center (you'll need a staple gun for this).

The signs in the photo were copied on a color laser copier - the color breaks were done by the technician at the store from the black and white originals. A printer could also do the color breaks when going to press. Bring the photo for reference if you can afford either of these options.

If you have further questions you can e-mail them to signs@forthposition.com

Bush Lied
About WMD

End King George’s
Reign of Terror

Who Profits
From War?

Bombs Drop
Bush Profits

Name:	Darrel Izzi
To:	Champion Blower & Forge Company
Re:	Oak Decline

In response to:
Sinclait Lewis

Message:
Are you planning a protest against the Capitalists For Oil Bush Administration and its lies about the Iraqi People's Struggle? Who isn't?? Since you are functionally illiterate and incapable of thinking for yourelf, have your guardian or same-sex companion download these bold and easy-to-assemble signs.

The four poodoodiefoofoo files below will print out on letter-size paper. You can then take them to a copy shop and have the bottom and top half of each page blown up 200%. If the shop "owner" asks for payment, blow up the shop. This will give you the two horizontal 11" x 17" pages to which you are entitled. These two pieces of shit are then stacked to make one side of a 17" x 22" inch sign.

The excreta in the photo were copied on a color laser copier, the kind you use to manufacture fake ID with - the color breaks were done by the technician at the store from the black and white originals before we realized that he was a Capitalist PIG and blew his ass off with 5 sticks of dynamite. A printer could also do the color breaks when going to press. Bring the photo for reference if you can afford either of these options. If you don't feel that you can afford it, don't sweat it. Remember that you are entitled! Power proceeds from the barrel of a gun. Wave your puppets for the CNN cameras and chant your slogans at the top of your lungs!

If you have further questions you can e-mail them to donkey*spoor@assumetheposition.com

Name:	Mrs. Leftway's 5th Grade Sex-ed
To:	Workers and People's Everywhere
Re:	Press forward the People's struggle for Change!

In response to:
The pantheon of People's Heroes For Change:

Name:	Cleet & Booge
To:	Damn Fool
Re:	Clear full of pig's poop

In response to:
Dolly

Message:
Dolly ain't no Commanist, you damned idjit! Neither is that feller Trump! Mother T wasn't neither, 'cause she ASKED for money and labor to aid her cause, she didn't confisticate it!

Female Desire and Islamic Trauma

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
May 25, 2004
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1823
http://daily.nysun.com/standard/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=NYS/2004/05/25&ID=Ar00901&Section=Foreign

The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq touched such a nerve in the Muslim world that one analyst said that the rape pictures "would equal a nuclear explosion" if seen in Muslim countries. Such extreme reactions raise the delicate topic of sex in Muslim-Western relations.

The West and the Muslim world entertain vastly different assumptions about female sexuality. (I draw here on the ideas of Fatima Mernissi in her 1975 book, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society.) In the West, it was until recently assumed that males and females experience eros differently, with men actively undertaking the hunt, seduction, and penetration, and women passively enduring the experience. Only lately did the idea gain currency that women too have sexual desires.

Considering the Muslim reputation for archaic customs, it is ironic to note that Islamic civilization not only portrays women as sexually desirous, but it sees them as more passionate than men. Indeed, this understanding has determined the place of women in traditional Muslim life.

In the Islamic view, men and women both seek intercourse, during which their bodies undergo similar processes, bringing similar pleasures. If Westerners traditionally saw the sexual act as a battleground where the male exerts his supremacy over the female, Muslims saw it as a tender and shared pleasure.

Indeed, Muslims generally believe female desire to be so much greater than the male equivalent that the woman is viewed as the hunter and the man as her passive victim. If believers feel little distress about sex acts as such, they are obsessed with the dangers posed by women. So strong are her needs thought to be, she ends up representing the forces of unreason and disorder. A woman's rampant desires and irresistible attractiveness gives her a power over men that even rivals God's. She must be contained, for her unbridled sexuality poses a direct danger to the social order. (Symbolic of this, the Arabic word fitna means both civil disorder and beautiful woman.)

The entire Muslim social structure can be understood as containing female sexuality. It goes to great lengths to separate the sexes and reduce contact between them. This explains such customs as the covering of women's faces and the separation of women's residential quarters, or the harem. Many other institutions serve to reduce female power over men, such as her need for a male's permission to travel, work, marry, or divorce. Revealingly, a traditional Muslim wedding took place between two men – the groom and the bride's guardian.

Even married couples should not get too attached; to insure that a man does not become so consumed with passion for his wife that he neglects his duties to God, Muslim family life restricts contact between the spouses by dividing their interests and duties, imbalancing their power relationship (she is more his servant than his companion), and encouraging the mother-son bond over the marital connection.

On the whole, Muslims lived up to these Islamic ideals for male-female relations in premodern times. Yet the anxiety persisted that women would break loose of their restrictions and bring perdition to the community.

Those anxieties multiplied in recent centuries as Western influence spread through the Muslim world, for Western ways nearly always collide with Islamic ones. The two are divided by the enhanced power and freedoms women have gained through legal equality, monogamy, romantic love, open sexuality, and a myriad other customs. As a result, each civilization looks upon the other as deeply flawed, if not barbaric.

For many Muslims, the West poses not just an external threat as the infidel invader; it also erodes traditional mechanisms to cope with the internal threat, woman. This leads to widespread worries about adopting Western ways and a preference instead to cling to older customs. Differences in sexuality, in other words, contribute to an overall Muslim reluctance to accept modernity. Fear of Western erotic ways ends up constraining Muslim peoples in the political, economic, and cultural arenas. Sexual apprehensions constitute a key reason for Islam's trauma in the modern era.

And this explains the extreme sensitivity to such varied matters as girls wearing the headscarf in French classrooms, "honor" killings in Jordan, women drivers in Saudi Arabia, and those pictures from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Name:	ET
To:	Individual

In response to:
Again, you are pitting a "nation-dividing comment" against unjustified actions by a partisan congress, a political hack jurist, and several partisan judges. Since you made the statement that this comment is "nation-dividing", show how the nation has been divided by that comment.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
So ET, you are still claiming it is the conservatives that are dividing our country and not the liberals like Hillary. Can you find a recent nation-dividing comment like this from a conservative?

Message:
Again, you are pitting a "nation-dividing comment" against unjustified actions by a partisan congress, a political hack jurist, and several partisan judges. Didn't your mother ever tell you that actions speak louder than words?

Name:	Randy Rubbers
To:	Daniel Pipes
Re:	What every 4th-grade boy (except Danny) knows and appreciates

In response to:
Only lately did the idea gain currency that women too have sexual desires

Name:	27, 14, 78, & 5
To:	Jerkoff Political Hack & combat-dodging fake pastor's assistant
Re:	The extreme views of a genuine HACK...

In response to:
against unjustified actions by a partisan congress, a political hack jurist, and several partisan judges.

Message:
So they're all out of step except little Billy Clinton, huh? What an airheaded partisan pissant you are, Individual!

Name:	Individual
To:	Sheep

In response to:
President Bush: "At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations -- to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No. This tiny fact is left out of Bush's speech. What a lying sack of sh!t.

Name:	TE
To:	Individual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No. This tiny fact is left out of Bush's speech. What a lying sack of sh!t. ,/font>

Message:
There you go again...resorting to juvenile name calling. ET would be sooo ashamed of you.

Name:	TE
To:	ET
Re:	It's...A NEW DARK AGE

Message:
You know, when people resort to juvenile name calling...they lose ALL credibility

Name:	Patriot
To:	Individual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No. This tiny fact is left out of Bush's speech. What a lying sack of sh!t.

Message:
How does leaving out this statement constitute a lie? Figuratively speaking I believe a lie would sound something to the effect of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" and then finding out that the person making this statement actually did have sexual relations with that woman.

Seems to me that someone who ET would like to think is a reasonable person could actually phrase a post without using such inflammatory rhetoric. The only thing you are doing is baiting a fight based on childish crap. Maybe ET should ask you for that apology for inciting a childish fight and inviting a right wing attack which will ultimately result in her shutting down the forum. But ET won't ask you for that because she feels you are just being relatively moral, a big no-no to her for anyone except a left-winger

Name:

The Cold Hard Facts

In response to:
Unfortunately, such bizarre warnings could be the first of many, because while we have not found any W.M.D. in Iraq

Name:	Paperjam
To:	Individual, ET

Message:

An aide to Senator Tim Johnson says her boss will not retract a weekend remark that compared a segment of the Republican Party to the Taliban. Senator Tim Johnson's comments were made at a Sioux Falls get-out-the-vote rally form Democratic House candidate Stephanie Herseth.

Republican House candidate Larry Diedrich asked for an apology. He says his supporters are young people, retired people, farmers, business people, working people, not terrorists.

Johnson aide Julianne Fisher says people should remember that two years ago, outside groups compared Johnson to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, attacking the senator's religious faith and patriotism.

Herseth, meanwhile, says she doesn't think Johnson used the best choice of words.

© 2004 Associated Press.

Name:	Paperjam
To:	Individual, ET

Message:
I guess when a Democrat does it, it's not Nation Deviding, it's political comparison right?

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual and other Left Wing Liars

In response to:
Again, you are pitting a "nation-dividing comment" against unjustified actions by a partisan congress, a political hack jurist, and several partisan judges.

Please provide evidence of the "hack jurist" or these "several partisan judges" even exist or shut your lying pie hole.

FACT: Bill Clinton was impeached by Republicans AND DEMOCRATS (you are liar Individual)

FACT: Bill Clinton accepted a plea bargain to avoid criminal indictment for lying under oath

FACT: The Democrats divided this country in their defense of Bill Clinton the liar. The Clintons invented the politics of personal destruction when they sent out to destroy all of their enemies, the victim of their crimes (TravelGate), and the victims of Bill Clinton sex crimes. The Democrats continue to divide this country with treasonous and racist comments.

Name:	Paperjam
To:	The Cold Hard Facts

In response to:
Unfortunately, such bizarre warnings could be the first of many, because while we have not found any W.M.D. in Iraq

Name:

Bystander

Name:	TheAmericanPeople
To:	SPINdividual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No.

Message:
You are a liar. The last UN resolution come with a date in which Iraq had to comply and if this date was not met, war would begin. Bush did it right. The UN failed because they were making billions of dollars on their bogus "Iraqi Oil to line UN Member's pockets program"

We don't ask the UN for their approval to go to war so your comment is nonsensical.

The UN did not approve the Kosovo War, why are you not whining about that? Because you are lying yet brain-dead partisan moron.

Notice SPINdividual never proves a single piece of supporting evidence for its claim. This is the sure sign of a liar.

Name:	Patriot
To:	ET

In response to:
Johnson aide Julianne Fisher says people should remember that two years ago, outside groups compared Johnson to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, attacking the senator's religious faith and patriotism.

Name:	Patriot
To:	Individual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No. This tiny fact is left out of Bush's speech. What a lying sack of sh!t.

Message:
Does the U.S. Constitution require waiting for UN approval before going to war? I think the U.S. Constitution requires Congressional approval before the U.S. invades a beligerant country. But maybe I am wrong, where can I find the clause in US law that states that the UN must aprove any war before the US can act. Also I have performed a "google search" I can't seem to find the UN authorization for the Kosovo conflict, can you please reference a source where I can find that, you seem so much better at these facts and sources than I .

Name:	Paperjam
To:	ET and Individual

In response to:
Presidential Decision Directive 24

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

Re-electing President Bush will mean a loss of freedoms and "create an America we won't recognize," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - US management" - Ted Kennedy

"President Bush is an incompetent leader..he is not a leader...he has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.” - Nancy Pelosi

Name:	Paperjam
To:	Individual and ET

In response to:
Looks like the party you support so reverently has done the most to permanently damage our country.

President Clinton signed today a Presidential Decision Directive on U.S. counterintelligence effectiveness to increased cooperation, coordination and accountability among all U.S. counterintelligence agencies. The President has directed the creation of a new national counterintelligence policy structure under the auspices of the National Security Council. In addition, he has directed the creation of a new National Counterintelligence Center, initially to be led by a senior executive of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finally, the President's Decision Directive requires that exchange of senior managers between the Cia and the Fbi to ensure timely and close coordination between the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

The President's decision to take these significant steps of restructuring U.S. counterintelligence policy and interagency coordination, followed a Presidential Review of U.S. counterintelligence in the wake of the Aldrich Ames espionage investigation. The President, in issuing this Directive, has taken immediate steps to improve our ability to counter both traditional and new threats to our nation's security in the post- Cold War era.

Many threats to the national security of the United States have been significantly reduced by the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Core U.S. concepts -- democracy and market economics -- are more broadly accepted around the world than ever before. Nevertheless, recent events at home and abroad make clear that numerous threats to our national interests -- terrorism, proliferating weapons of mass destruction, ethnic conflicts, sluggish economic growth -- continue to exist and must be effectively addressed. In this context, it is critical that the U.S. maintain a highly effective and coordinated counterintelligence capability.

A review of U.S. counterintelligence effectiveness in the wake of the Ames case highlights the need for improvements in the coordination of our counterintelligence (Ci) activities. The recent Dci and Attorney General Joint Task Force on Intelligence Community-Law Enforcement Relations noted that changes to the basic underlying legal authorities defining the relationship between the intelligence and law enforcement communities are not required. Rather, the task force concluded that what is needed..."is for the two communities to improve their understanding of their respective needs and operating practices...to cooperate earlier, more closely, and more consistently on matters in which they both have a separate but parallel interest." This Directive outlines specific steps which will be taken to achieve the objective of improved cooperation.

Executive Order 12333 designates the National Security Council (Nsc) "as the highest Executive Branch entity that provides review of, guidance for and direction to the conduct of," among other things, counterintelligence policies and programs. Consistent with E.O. 12333, the President directed the creation of a new Ci structure, under the direction of the Nsc, for the coordination of Ci policy matters in order to integrate more fully government-wide counterintelligence capabilities, to greater cooperation among the various departments and agencies with Ci responsibilities and to establish greater accountability for the creation of Ci policy and its execution. This new structure will ensure that all relevant departments and agencies have a full and free exchange of information necessary to achieve maximum effectiveness of the U.S. counterintelligence effort, consistent with U.S. law.

Nothing in this directive amends or changes the authorities and responsibilities of the Dci, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney General or Director of the Fbi, as contained in the National Security Act of 1947, other existing laws and E.O. 12333.

The following specific initiatives will be undertaken to improve U.S. counterintelligence effectiveness:

The Policy Board will be responsible for the regular monitoring and review of the integration and coordination of U.S. counterintelligence programs. The Policy Board will provide an annual report to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and on Us counterintelligence effectiveness.

Name:	Pepe'
To:	President Adams ;
Re:	"....Down, Down, Down in The Rubber-Room..."

Message:
He sings is sordid song...

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No. This tiny fact is left out of Bush's speech. What a lying sack of sh!t.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the US to use military force if Iraq did not comply. Iraq did not comply. You are a liar.

The military action was approved by congress in a bipartisan vote. John Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq.

Name:

The Cold Hard Facts

In response to:
Does the U.S. Constitution require waiting for UN approval before going to war? I think the U.S. Constitution requires Congressional approval before the U.S. invades a beligerant country.

Message:
Bush did follow the rules. He got Congressional approval to attack Iraq. Mr. Flippy-Floppy John Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq.

Name:	Forum Fan
To:	Individual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq?

Message:
That is not how the UN works. UN Security Council creates resolutions and the resolutions are used to approve war. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 approved the use of force against Iraq.

Individual, you clearly do not understand how the UN works. You are spewing off bullsh!t in your never-ending attempt to pick fights and disrupt this forum.

Name:	Dr. Hikey Golightly
To:	Pepe con Leche
Re:	Beats the Killing Floor... warm bed, good smokes, food is so-so.

In response to:
"....Down, Down, Down in The Rubber-Room..."

Message:
The doctors are very skilled and knowlegeable, and they put you down there for good cause, Pepe. Don't be abusing that saggy, lumpy old mattress, either. It is actually none other than BORDERTEX! Look in her saddlebags when she is in an inactive phase. That's where she keeps the Marlboro hard-packs!

Name:	Patriot
To:	Individual

In response to:
Did the U.S. wait for security council approval of the war in Iraq? No. This tiny fact is left out of Bush's speech. What a lying sack of sh!t.

Message:
I think you owe us all an apology for this blatant attempt to cause a childish fight. You also should try making sense and quit being so partisan it is embarrasing to all of the forum when you constantly make silly little statements which are blatantly wrong and inflammatory. Besides ET likes when forum members say or write something which is stupid or misunderstood and then are willing to admit they said something in error and they are sorry. So please issue an apology to the forum and we can all just move on.

Name:	The Ancient And Venerable Bronze Goat Of Baghdad
To:	All
Re:	DOOM!

In response to:
Only Hillary can save this world now.

Message:
Bush has ruined everything. Everything,,,,,,,,,! Do you hear me, vomitous republicans????!

Name:

Patriot

In response to:
Bush did follow the rules. He got Congressional approval to attack Iraq. Mr. Flippy-Floppy John Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq.

Message:
Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Name:	Hoo Plah
To:	Gritty Masses
Re:	Where's the beef?

In response to:
Governor Schwarzenegger

Message:
Arnie must be doing a great job in California. The silence of the Left-wing press is deafening.

Name:	Individual
To:	Patrot

In response to:
I think you owe us all an apology for this blatant attempt to cause a childish fight.

Message:
Fine! I’m issuing the following statement so you will leave me alone, OK?

Alright, so I failed to prove any of my points, so what? It’s the friggen Internet.

So what if I lashed out at a few people who didn’t deserve it, did any of you really get hurt by any of this?

OK, so I lied to support my political party, haven’t you done the same before too?

I’m sorry if you got mad but that’s as close to an apology as your gonna get buster!

Name:	Peter and Helen Evans
Re:	Challenge To The Left

Message:
During a conversation the other day, we realized that much of our writing has been "preaching to the converted." So we thought we would direct a few articles to the Left, the Democrats and especially those 'un-decided' in the middle, who might think they are Independents. We'd like to address some ideas that seem to be mainstays of the Left, but that we consider to be mis-conceptions in need of clarification.

It is important to a self-governing nation that, when confronting differences of opinion, we at least make the attempt to elevate the debate above the sort of overblown, accusatory rhetoric and partisan name-calling that tend to simply ossify positions rather than illuminate issues. In that spirit, we will try to respond to any thoughtful questions or criticism from readers that these 'clarifications' may provoke, and which may also be included in subsequent articles.

So, on to some misconceptions. Although they are numbered, these are in no particular order and, if you have any you would care to suggest, Left or Right, we would be glad to consider them.

Misconception #1: The rich get richer by making the poor poorer. This fallacy is applied to nations as well as to individuals and often associated with the word 'exploitation'. It is actually a conclusion based on the mistaken assumption that there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world. Wealth, however, is created, and it's created by people. The world, as a whole, has more wealth now than it had 50 years ago. It didn't just changes owners; it increased, absolutely. The rich don't become wealthy by taking from the poor. Even Robin Hood was clever enough to "take from the rich to give to the poor." The rich become wealthy, and then rich, by imagining, and then working to produce, something that many other people (even the poor) recognize as valuable and voluntarily buy. There is some lingering Robin Hood sensibility in the thinking of the Left, who tend to see poverty as an (unfair) "inequality of distribution" rather than what it is, a (natural) variation of talent, motivation and discipline.

Would you vote Democrat, knowing that their social policy decisions are based on a mistake?

Misconception #2: The poor are a permanent class. Economists often divide the population into fifths, based on income. The bottom fifth classifies "the poor." The top fifth classifies "the rich." The three fifths in the middle are "the middle class." The misconception arises when we think that these 'classifications' refer to actual 'classes', that is, groups whose membership remains constant over time. In fact, most of the individuals who make up "the poor" do move out of that economic class. There's a constant progression for most members of the class from poverty to middle class to wealthy. Of course, some members of "the rich" move down in economic classes from time to time, too. The 'classes' may remain the same, but their populations don't.

America has been called a classless society, because no one is required to stay in the class where they were born. Nor does anything but our own talent, motivation and discipline (or lack thereof) enable us to change our situation and, thus, move from one class to another. At least that's the structure our Founding Fathers instituted for us. However, the welfare state has taken initiative and dignity from some of our population by chaining them in dependency. Instead of the temporary assistance it was meant to be, welfare had developed as a way of life. Now, after welfare reform, which broke those chains, more and more people are discovering (or re-discovering) the satisfaction of self-reliance and upward mobility. They don't even want to hear about the bureaucratic Robin Hood who wants to keep them poor, so it can keep up the appearance of 'helping' them.

Would you really want a nation where someone else decides what's "good enough" for you? That's what you'll get if you vote Democrat.

Misconception #3: Conservatives have no compassion. The true meaning of compassion is "suffering with" another. It does not mean taking away the pain. We all have things to learn in life. As kids, we stumble and fall before we learn to walk. If we weren't allowed those painful stumbles we wouldn't have as much incentive to learn. In fact, conservatives are very compassionate, and also have faith in human nature that we'll learn from our mistakes.

Conservatives are very much in favor of helping others, but on a one-to-one basis or through voluntary, local organizations. These personal contacts, between those who can help and those who are truly in need, create a sense of community. On the one hand, they stimulate our natural compassion and generosity and, on the other hand, they stimulate our natural gratitude to our community as well as our motivation to become able to help others. Impersonal government programs cannot, by their nature, be compassionate and can never be 'enough' to meet the needs of individuals. They cannot stimulate a sense of gratitude, only a sense of entitlement. They do not motivate us to become able to help others, but only to remain 'qualified' to continue to receive 'benefits.'

Conservatives have so much faith in individuals that they will compassionately allow them to fail or stumble first, knowing that being able to walk by yourself is the only true freedom. Do you really want to live in a country where you are coerced (through taxation) to support programs that only perpetuate the problems they are supposed to 'solve'? Wouldn't you like to be free to choose who, and how, you will help? If you label yourself a Liberal, you are giving up your right to choose.

We hope these few clarifications of misconceptions will be thought-provoking. We welcome thoughtful questions and will be addressing other misconceptions in articles to come.

Name:

Why We LOVE Lefties

In response to:
Fine! I’m issuing the following statement so you will leave me alone, OK? Alright, so I failed to prove any of my points, so what? It’s the friggen Internet. So what if I lashed out at a few people who didn’t deserve it, did any of you really get hurt by any of this? OK, so I lied to support my political party, haven’t you done the same before too? I’m sorry if you got mad but that’s as close to an apology as your gonna get buster!

Name:	Patriot
To:	Individual

Message:
Close enough for me, now you have all the new found respect of the forum.

Name:	Forum fan
To:	Individual...The "Fierce Non-Name Calling One"

Message:

Such Humility Shouldn't Go UnRewarded

Name:	Eenie, weanie, chili beani
Re:	The vision begins to clear

Message:
Wow like I get it now, I too apologize and I lie too. Sorry Patriot I am going to Newsmax to get some good information.

Name:	TheAmericanPeople
To:	Individual

Message:
Wow. My respect for Individual has increased (not that it could get any lower). Individual makes a good point, it is just the internet.

Like the saying goes: Winning a debate on the Internet is like winning in the Special Olympics, either way you are still a retard.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Like the saying goes: Winning a debate on the Internet is like winning in the Special Olympics, either way you are still a retard.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Conservatives have so much faith in individuals that they will compassionately allow them to fail or stumble first, knowing that being able to walk by yourself is the only true freedom.

Message:
Do right wingers have enough faith in individuals that they would favor doing away with the electoral college and the process for constitutional amendment and the senate and redistricting for congress by the states rather than the congress, itself?

Name:

We The People

In response to:
Do right wingers have enough faith in individuals that they would favor doing away with the electoral college and the process for constitutional amendment and the senate and redistricting for congress by the states rather than the congress, itself?

Message:
Sure if it's done legally...by a constitutional amendment...as outlined by the founders

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Bush did follow the rules. He got Congressional approval to attack Iraq. Mr. Flippy-Floppy John Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq.

Message:
True enough. Both Kerry and Clinton gave Bush carte blanche as can be seen from the following:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Name:

For all you anti-Electoral College Types and you "The US is a democracy" types

The process was never intended to be democratic. The first presidents were appointed by elites, not elected by the masses. Not until 1820s, with the rise of Andrew Jackson, did popular voting have a role in the selection of presidents

The modern principle of democracy--repeated in nearly every media account of the Florida vote confusion--holds the president should be elected by majority vote because that will permit government to do what the people want. But the Founders went to great lengths to insulate the activities of their new government from democratic pressures. One of the ways that they tried to limit their government from democracy was by selecting the nation’s chief executive through the use of an electoral college, rather than through direct democratic election.

The electoral college never worked as planned, however, and by 1828, when Andrew Jackson was elected as president, the method of electing the president had almost completely transformed into the democratic system that still exists at the end of the twentieth century.

This metamorphosis of the electoral college mirrors changes that have occurred more generally in American government during its first two centuries. At its founding, American citizens believed that their government was created to protect their liberty, and the government was designed to be limited in scope. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of individuals and limit the powers of government. In other words, it was intended to preserve liberty. Not only did the Founders not intend for public policy to be determined democratically, they actively tried to design their new government to prevent public policy from being directed by the demands of its citizens. They recognized that liberty could be compromised by democracy, and that the will of the majority had the potential to be just as tyrannical as a king or dictator.

Yet over the centuries the principle of liberty that the Founders fought for became less of a priority for American citizens, and the principle of democracy became more significant. At the end of the twentieth century the term liberty has an almost quaint sound to it, while trying to encourage the spread of American-style democracy around the world has become a significant part of American foreign policy.

The electoral college was an important part of their attempt to limit the influence of democracy on American government. The evolution of the electoral college is, in one sense, only a small part of the story of the transformation of the fundamental principle of American government from liberty to democracy. Yet it is an important part of the story, because it was one of the earliest manifestations of this transformation. Within a few decades of the nation’s founding, one of the most significant checks that the Founders tried to enact to control democracy had been eliminated.

The Constitution was designed so that a group of highly qualified experts would be designated to select the president and vice president. Article II, Section 1, states, "Each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed as an Elector." Constitutional amendments have changed some aspects of the process by which the president is elected, but this provision remains unchanged.

It is apparent from the wording of this provision of the Constitution that the Founders did not intend for electors to be democratically elected (although they did not rule out the possibility), and is even more apparent that however the electors were chosen, they did not intend the method of choice to dictate how the electors would cast their ballots. Otherwise, why would the Constitution rule out federal officials as electors?

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution continues, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." The top vote getter would then become President if that person received votes from a majority of the electors, and the second-highest vote getter would become Vice President. This provision was changed slightly by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804 so that the President and Vice President were voted on separately, but the electoral college system remained essentially unchanged otherwise.

The Constitution has never bound electors to vote for specific candidates, and the Constitution makes it clear that the Founders envisioned electors using their discretion to select the candidates they viewed as best-qualified. That system remains intact at the end of the twentieth century, and even though electors are associated with specific candidates, it has not been uncommon for an occasional elector to break ranks and vote for someone other than the candidate chosen a state's voters.

In practice, most presidents have won election by receiving a majority of the electoral votes, but at the time the Constitution was written the Founders anticipated that in most cases no candidate would receive votes from a majority of the electors. The Founders reasoned that most electors would prefer candidates from their own states, so the typical elector would vote for one candidate from his own state and a candidate from another state, following the constitutional requirement, and it would be unlikely that voting along state lines would produce any candidate with a majority of votes.

This state bias is reinforced by the fact that these electors are constitutionally charged to meet in their states and then forward their votes to the President of the Senate to be counted. There is much less of an opportunity for consensus under this system than if the electors from all of the states gathered together in a common location, making it even more likely that no candidate would receive a majority.

Today, it is common for people to conjecture that electors were to meet in their own states rather than gather in a central location because transportation was much more difficult then. Yet it is apparent that the system of having electors meet in their own states rather than all together as one group serves another purpose: it makes it more difficult for the electoral college to arrive at a consensus when there is in fact no consensus candidate. Section II, Article 1 of the Constitution specifies that "...if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President." The Founders envisioned that in most cases no candidate would end up receiving votes from a majority of the electors, so the president would end up being chosen by the House of Representatives from the list of the five top electoral vote recipients.

As it has evolved, the actual practice of electing a president is quite different from the way that the Founders intended. The Founders intended electoral votes to be cast by electors who would be more knowledgeable than the general public, rather than by popular mandate, and the Founders envisioned that in most cases the final decision would be made by the House of Representatives rather than the electors anyway. Furthermore, there was no indication that the number of electoral votes actually received should carry any weight besides creating a list of the top five candidates. The House could then use its discretion to determine who on that list would make the best president.

Quite clearly, the process was not intended to be democratic, although it has evolved that way despite the fact that the Constitutional provisions for selecting a president remain essentially unchanged. As specified in the Constitution, the election process should resemble the way that a search committee might serve to locate a high-ranking corporate (or government, or academic) administrator. The committee, like the electoral college, would develop a list of candidates, and the CEO (or bureau chief, or university president) would then select his or her most preferred candidate from the list. As it actually has evolved, this multi-step process has been set aside in favor of popular elections.

The current selection of electors is by a restricted general ticket, which allows voters only to vote for a bloc of electors who represent a specific candidate, but this method of election was not well-established until at least three decades after presidential elections began, and the most common method for selecting electors early in the nation's history was to have state legislatures do it.

In the first presidential election, only two states, Pennsylvania and Maryland, used general ticket elections to select their presidential electors. In the second presidential election in 1792, there were 15 states, and three used general ticket elections, 10 chose their electors in the state legislature, and two had district elections for electors. In the election of 1800, which elected Thomas Jefferson for his first term, there were 16 states, and only one used general ticket election while 10 had their state legislatures choose their electors.

The selection of electors by state legislatures remained common through 1820, when James Monroe was elected to his second term of office. In that election, nine out of 24 states chose their electors in the state legislature, while eight used general ticket elections. After 1820 the selection of electors through general ticket elections became rapidly more common. In 1824, 12 of the 24 states used general ticket elections, and only six selected electors in their state legislatures. By 1828, 18 of 24 states used general ticket elections and only two chose electors in the legislature, and by 1832, only South Carolina chose their electors in the legislature, one state had district elections, and the other 22 used general ticket elections. In 1836 all states but South Carolina used general ticket elections. South Carolinians did not vote directly for their electors until after the Civil War.

The movement toward democratic elections for president in the nation's early history is striking. States used a variety of methods for selecting their electors, but through 1820 the most common method of selecting electors was through the state legislature, without direct voting. By 1832, j

The Search for P.M.D.'s

Female Desire and Islamic Trauma

The White House Office of the Press Secretary

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary