Hillary_Clinton_Forum_1180

How America can win the intelligence war Departed US Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet tried to ascertain whether available intelligence justified a war, I observed last week. The late president Ronald Reagan's CIA chief, Bill Casey, knew that if you want intelligence, first you start a war. If you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. Reagan's people had the courage to ask the right question to begin with, namely whether the Soviet system could keep pace with America's drive for strategic superiority. The diplomatic and academic establishment asked the wrong question, that is, how detente might be perpetuated with a seemingly eternal Russian empire. Was communism merely a somewhat obstreperous partner, or an enemy to be defeated? Every US intelligence assessment of Soviet military strength and morale available in 1981 was dead wrong. Washington learned better by putting Moscow under stress. How adaptable was Russian weapons technology? Start a high-tech arms race with the Strategic Defense Initiative and find out. How good were Russian avionics? Help the Israeli air force engage Syria's MiGs in the Bekaa Valley in 1982, and the destruction with impunity of Russian-built fighters and surface-to-air missile sites would provide a data point. How solid was Russian fighting morale? Instigate irregular warfare against the Russian army in Afghanistan and learn. The United States lacks the aptitude and inclination to penetrate the mind of adversary cultures (Why America is losing the intelligence war, November 11, 2003). In the so-called war on terror, it lacks the floating population of irredentist emigres who provided a window into Russian-occupied Eastern Europe back during the Cold War. But the best sort of intelligence stems not from scholarship but from decisiveness of command and clarity of mission. "War is not an intellectual activity but a brutally physical one," observes Sir John Keegan in Intelligence and War, published last year. President George W Bush might do well to read it carefully before choosing the next CIA director. It was not the intellectuals but the bullyboys of the Reagan administration who shook loose the relevant intelligence. In 1981 the CIA enjoyed a surfeit of Russian speakers, in contrast to today's paucity of Arabic translators. But William Casey routinely ignored the legions of Russian-studies PhDs, reaching out instead to irregulars who could give him the insights he required. Intelligence in warfare presents a different sort of intellectual challenge than academics are trained to address. President Reagan, no intellectual in the conventional sense, nonetheless formed a clear assessment of what the enemy was, what it wanted, and how it might be defeated. Without the courage to define and then engage the enemy, intelligence services will wander randomly in the dark. If in 1981 the enemy was the "evil empire" of Soviet communism, who is the enemy of the West today? A number of Washington's critics, for example Dr Daniel Pipes, observe that it is senseless to speak of a "war on terrorism", for terrorism is a tactic, a mere method to achieve a strategic goal. But what is the goal and who wishes to achieve it? Without defining the enemy, how can one define the mission? Pipes and others propose instead to declare war upon "radical Islam", a formulation that leads to just as much confusion. No one, least of all the vast majority of the world's Muslims, can say with any clarity what distinguishes radical Islam from "moderate Islam". Western polemicists felt at home on the moral high ground against communism, along with president Reagan. But they are tongue-tied before radical Islam, fearing to offend a religion with more than a billion adherents. Inadvertently they give credibility to the radicals. It is difficult to assess what proportion of today's Muslims are "radicals", because neither the world's Muslims nor the West has a clear definition of what is radical and what is not. Vitriolic sermonizing is so commonplace under the eyes of "moderate" regimes, for example Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, that the label of "radical Islam" has worn thin. In reality, the West sooner or later will have to draw a bright line between "radicals" and "moderates". Under the circumstances there can be nothing in between. Islam's encounter with the West leaves room for nothing but radical jihadists on the one hand, or radical reformers. Islam is expansionist by construction and political by its original design. It is a fact of history that jihad, by which I mean specifically the propagation of the faith by violence, is a mainstream tradition. Even communal prayer in Islam has at its center the alignment of the individual believer to jihad (Does Islam have a prayer?, May 18). Identifying the enemy in 1981 was far easier than in 2004, and President Bush deserves a modicum of sympathy in the inevitable comparison to Ronald Reagan. By 1981 no communists still lived within the confines of the Soviet Empire, only careerists. The emperor had no clothes, such that when Reagan spoke of an evil empire and a warped idea destined for the ash can of history, the truth of his remarks resonated among the Soviet elite. By contrast the Islamic world is full of Muslims. It was much easier for Russians to separate national aspirations and Marxism than it is for Arabs to separate ethnic loyalty and Islam. That is less so for South Asians. The problem actually is quite simple. To advocate jihad today is the hallmark of the radical Islamist, and it is there that the West must draw a line in the sand. But to repudiate jihad in turn implies radical revision of the religion's mainstream, and that is the hallmark of the radical reformer. Like other religions, Islam has reached a point in world history - or rather world history has caught up with Islam - such that it must undergo a fundamental change. By way of comparison, the Catholic Church accepts separation of church and state as well as religious tolerance, but it did so only after the likes of Count Camillo Benso Cavour in Italy stripped the papacy of temporal rule over anything but the square mile of the Vatican City. Western leaders must not attack Islam; to take sides against any religion runs counter to the traditions of religious tolerance upon which the United States was founded. But they must denounce the use of force to propagate religion, and make it clear that they will match force with force. The enemy is not "terrorism", but any form of violence, including conventional warfare, in the service of religious expansionism. What does that mean in practice? First of all it changes the subject and shifts the battleground. The issue is not whether Middle Eastern governments will adopt democratic reforms - that is not within the power of the West to dictate - but whether Muslims will employ violence in the service of territorial irredentism in the Kashmir or Palestine. There simply is no more room for the jihadist dogma that Muslims may not abandon a square meter of the Dar al-Islam. Violence to reclaim lost territory is a characteristic of radical Islam and the hallmark of an enemy of the West. The first step should be to remove Yasser Arafat to exile in some inaccessible locale. Further steps should be action - not protests - to protect Nigerians, Indonesians, or Sudanese against violent attempts to further the Islamic cause. Black Sudanese are the victims of genocide encouraged by the radical Islamic regime in Khartoum. Washington should send them not only food, but also weapons and Special Forces advisers. Stern warnings, backed if necessary by a reduction in foreign aid, should be delivered to US clients in the Middle East that jihadist rhetoric on the part of government newspapers and government-sponsored clerics simply will not be tolerated. Enemy is radical Islam In short, the West must give the Islamic world a clear choice as to who is with it, and who is against it - words that President Bush has used but with muddled meaning. That would change the character of the intelligence war utterly. It may be harder to define who is friend and foe today than it was in 1981, but by the same token, it will be far easier to tell friend from foe once the West carves its criteria in stone. The bane of US intelligence in the Middle East from Somalia to Iraq has been its inability to know whom it can trust. Victory has many fathers, while defeat is an orphan, although sometimes attended by paternity suits. The unseemly public exchange of charges between the CIA and the Pentagon over Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi is the most flagrant example. The CIA has placed stories in the press claming that Chalabi is an Iranian provocateur, heatedly denied by Chalabi's friends in the Pentagon civilian establishment. This removes all doubt that America's intelligence effort is an orphan. The only question is, whose? It would be convenient if US universities trained prospective spies in Middle Eastern and South Asian language skills and culture. But the United States can obtain all the spies it wants with all required skills: it simply has to persuade Muslims to join its cause. Once the US determined to win the Cold War, enough Russians and Eastern Europeans switched sides to give the US the winning hand. Existential despair is the result of the West's tragic encounter with the Islamic world, but it can cut two ways; it has produced suicide bombers, but it also can produce radical reformers who repudiate their own culture in favor of the West. If Washington were to make repudiation of jihad a condition for friendship with the United States, the demand would have unpredictable and destabilizing consequences for the Islamic world. Just as the race of Sovietologists viewed Reagan's determination to destabilize the Soviet Empire with horror, the whole profession of Mideast studies would rear up in horror against such a stance. But wars are won by ignoring the fat and complacent commanders of garrison troops, and forcing the burden of uncertainty on to the other side (Ronald Reagan's creative destruction, June 8). Decisive intelligence stems from destabilization of the opposing side, through defections and similar events. Bush might as well shut down the CIA and re-create something like the wartime Office of Strategic Services, for which Casey parachuted agents into occupied Europe. Most of the CIA amounts to a make-work project for second-rate academics, drawn from an academic environment generally hostile to US strategic interests. Even if US universities still produced strategic thinkers rather than multicultural mush-heads, and even if the CIA could recruit them, little would change. In spite of the academics, Bill Casey won his intelligence war because the US convinced enough players on the other side that it would win. To win to its side the best men and women of the Islamic world, the United States must make clear what it wants from them.  source (Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

Name:

Individual

In response to:
If Washington were to make repudiation of jihad a condition for friendship with the United States, the demand would have unpredictable and destabilizing consequences for the Islamic world.

Message:
Yes. This repudiation should include the Islamic clerics saying, loud and clear, that anyone who targets civilians will burn in hell.

Name:	Editor
To:	Asia Times
Re:	The name of the enemy is JIHADIS not terrorists.

Message:
The Asia Times is backing up what I said a few forums ago: If you can't name the enemy you can't win the war in Iraq or anywhere else.

The name of the enemy is "jihadis" that rhymes with "nazis"

If you call them "Militant Islamacists" or "Radical Islamists" or "Militant Islam" or any name associated with Islam you alienate good Muslims, and the liberals in America will call you a "racist" -- But if you call them "jihadis" people immediately know these are bad people.

Calling them "terrorists" is the worst thing you can call them because terrorists are everywhere!!!. The Oklahoma bombing was done by terrorists. Terrorists looted and burned the Asian shops in South Central Los Angeles. Terrorists go on murder and looting rampages in Oakland, California. Terrorists smash store windows and cause other mayhem in their anti-war crusades. Terrorists went on a rampage in Rwanda and murdered two million people. I could go on and on giving examples of different kinds terrorists, but I think you see my point.

The War on Terrorism is the wrong name because it doesn't mean anything.

We can all start winning the war on the jihadis todayby making this small change. Stop anyone who says "terrorists" and ask them to say "jihadis" - explaining to them how important it is that they stop saying "terrorists" when they actually mean "jihadis".

Name:	ET
To:	Individual

In response to:
Yes. This repudiation should include the Islamic clerics saying, loud and clear, that anyone who targets civilians will burn in hell.

Message:
I would like to see Bush and everyone get tougher on these clerics, especially the ones who live in the United States. If they cannot repudiate the jihadis and condemn anyone who targets innocent people they should be deported, if they are not American citizens, or declared persona non grata if they are American citizens. Their tax exempt status should also be withdrawn.

Name:	Aegis
To:	Esteemed Editor
Re:	Are they political radicals? Religious radicals? Both?

In response to:
If you call them "Militant Islamacists" or "Radical Islamists" or "Militant Islam" or any name associated with Islam you alienate good Muslims, and the liberals in America will call you a "racist" -- But if you call them "jihadis" people immediately know these are bad people.

Message:
You make some excellent points here, I think. But... what is the definition of "Jihadi" as understood by most Muslim people? Is it the same as our definition? For most Westerners, I think the word "Jihadi" instantly conjures images of wild-eyed, murderous terrorists. Specifically, MUSLIM terrorists. They are not simply random thrill killers. They do have an agenda. We do need an accurate, non-perjorative word to describe them. But is it "Jihadi"?

Name:	Editor
To:	Aegis

In response to:
But... what is the definition of "Jihadi" as understood by most Muslim people? Is it the same as our definition? For most Westerners, I think the word "Jihadi" instantly conjures images of wild-eyed, murderous terrorists. Specifically, MUSLIM terrorists. They are not simply random thrill killers. They do have an agenda. We do need an accurate, non-perjorative word to describe them. But is it "Jihadi"?

Message:
Why do you want a "non-pejorative" word for people who believe in killing the innocent? I don't understand?

There is no word pejorative enough to describe this group of evil maniacs. I'm puzzled as to your reasoning. Why should we give, even the slightest, respect to these monsters? Not even a hint. They deserve the worst condemnation the English language can provide.

Name:	Truth
To:	ET
Re:	animal farm

In response to:
Shhhh.... We only want left-wing voices here

Message:
Truth hurts dosn't it

Name:	Aegis
To:	ET
Re:	Avoiding the perception of perjorativeness toward good Muslims

In response to:
You make some excellent points here, I think. But... what is the definition of "Jihadi" as understood by most Muslim people ? Is it the same as our definition?

Message:
Aren't you trying to avoid alienating the good Muslims? Isn't "Jihadi" a Muslim term?

Name:	Editor
To:	Aegis

Message:
I wouldn't even capitalize the word "jihadi" -- Give no respect at all -- jihadi=evil. Like referring to the words "evil creature", jihadi is a synonym for evil creature. By capitalizing it you are giving them a distinction they do not deserve.

Name:	Milan
To:	Aegis and De-nuze

In response to:
We do need an accurate, non-perjorative word to describe them. But is it "Jihadi"?

Message:
Thanks for your earlier support.

But I am surprised by your suggestion to find a euphemism for "jihadi".

In some regards (as our esteemed editor once pointed out) this word is already respects Muslim sensibilities because unlike the term "Islamist," it does not incorporate the word "Islam."

If the word "jihadi" offends Muslim sensibilities, let them confront this concept with enough honesty and courage for them to truly decide whether they are with us,

or with the terrorists.

Name:	Aegis
To:	ET

In response to:
There is no word pejorative enough to describe this group of evil maniacs.

Message:
Agreed.

Name:

..

Message:

The King 'n Queen

actin all royal 'n stuff

Name:

Individual

In response to:
I would like to see Bush and everyone get tougher on these clerics, especially the ones who live in the United States. If they cannot repudiate the jihadis and condemn anyone who targets innocent people they should be deported, if they are not American citizens, or declared persona non grata if they are American citizens. Their tax exempt status should also be withdrawn

Message:
A good start.

Name:	Aegis
To:	Individual

In response to:
Compelling certain speech

Message:
Isn't the freedom not to speak implicit in the freedom to speak?

Name:	Teacher/Educator
To:	Individual
Re:	Pre-K sex-ed an absolute must!

In response to:
If they cannot repudiate the jihadis and condemn anyone who targets innocent people they should be deported, if they are not American citizens, or declared persona non grata if they are American citizens. Their tax exempt status should also be withdrawn

Message:
We will tax these Mullah's silence and earmark the new revenues for education. We must build myriads of tiny classrooms for our great fat children!

Name:

Viktor Viktorovich

In response to:
The King 'n Queen

Message:
Moscow theater gas?

Name:	Miranda Wright
To:	Aegis

In response to:
Isn't the freedom not to speak implicit in the freedom to speak?

Message:
I've been told that....

Name:	Aegis
To:	Miranda Wright
Re:	You vill denounze ze zchihaties, und you vill be hap-hap-happy!

In response to:
I've been told that....

Message:
No taxes due?

Name:	Mike S. Adams
Re:	My apology to the Arab world

Message:
Author’s Note: the following editorial contains mildly offensive language. Given the subject matter, the author is sorry that it does not contain highly offensive language.

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot about the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. The pictures of those “abused” prisoners have been plastered all over the front pages of papers around the country. Some of my conservative friends have interpreted the excessive coverage as proof that papers like the New York Times are actually rooting against America in its current war on terror. Even those who aren’t willing to go that far say that such coverage is helping the enemy to recruit a new generation of terrorists to inflict harm upon our troops.

Despite these views, I have decided to make a formal public apology to the entire Arab world in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. It is my hope that the following apology will help bring some clarity to the situation and, who knows, maybe even lasting world peace:

Dear Arabs,

I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future.

I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 911. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs.

I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the “leaders” of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few.

I am also sorry that these governments intentionally breed hate for the U.S. in their religious schools while American schools do the exact opposite.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat has been kicked out of every Arab country and has attached his name to the Palestinian “cause.” I am also sorry that no other Arab country will offer nearly as much support to Arafat as we offer to them.

I am sorry that the U.S. has continued to serve as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arab nations while wealthy Arab leaders blame the U.S. for all of their problems.

I am sorry that left-wing media elites would Rather (pun intended) not talk about any of this, thereby perpetuating your anger towards us. It’s probably really bad for your blood pressure. I am also sorry that most of you lack the medical resources to measure your blood pressure. And, of course, I’m sorry that few of you have indoor plumbing. That’s bad for your health, too.

I am sorry that the U.N. cheated so many poor people in Iraq out of their “food for oil” money so they could get rich while the tortured, raped, and poverty-stricken citizens of Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers after their children are blown to pieces in pursuit of Arafat’s “cause.”

I am sorry that these homicide bombers have as little regard for babies as the local office of Planned Parenthood.

I am sorry that so many people are unable to differentiate between the gang rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the conditions of Abu Ghraib on the other.

I am sorry that our prison guards do not show the same restraint that Arabs show when their brothers in arms are killed. By the way, you shouldn’t be sorry about that.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we have not yet dropped at least 100 Daisy cutters on Fallujah in order to stop that effort.

I am also sorry that cleaning up the mess in Iraq is taking so long. It only took Saddam Hussein about 30 years to accomplish all he did in the realm of human rights. Come to think of it, that’s about ten years less than the duration of our War on Poverty in the U.S. Come to think of it, I’m sorry we haven’t sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah.

I am sorry that every time the terrorists hide, it just happens to be inside a “Holy Site.”

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry that we have not taken a portion of the diet of Michael Moore and shipped it to one of your starving villages in the Middle East. You need it Moore (pun intended) than he does.

I am sorry that your only supporters are professors, journalists, and other assorted Leftists who also support homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, partial birth abortion, and everything that you abhor in this world. I am sorry that everyone else in America is against you.

Finally, I am sorry that I am going to have to end this apology by asking you to kiss the right side of my conservative butt. I’m probably just having a bad day.

For that I am truly sorry.

Name:

Bimbo Eruption Task Force

In response to:
Their tax exempt status should also be withdrawn

Message:
Never!

Name:

Indoctrination of the Proleteriat

In response to:
Their tax exempt status should also be withdrawn

Message:
Just as soon as the NEA's is...

Name:	Editor
To:	Milan

In response to:
If the word "jihadi" offends Muslim sensibilities, let them confront this concept with enough honesty and courage for them to truly decide whether they are with us, or with the terrorists.

Message:
Good point. Now if only we could get the posts on this forum to President Bush.

I will send it to Daniel Pipes because I have had this discussion with him. He does not want to lump all the Muslim terrorists into jihadis, he says, because not all of them are jihadists.

I am going to write back to him and tell him that it's more important for all of us to agree on the pejorative word "jihadi" that does not exactly describe 100% of the Muslim terrorists, than it is to not name the enemy at all. How can we win a war if we can't even name the enemy? I do not believe that any country has ever won a war against an enemy it cannot name.

I encourage everybody on this forum to write to Daniel Pipes meqmef@aol.com and let him know how you feel about the importance of naming the enemy (without including the word Islam or Muslim). Daniel Pipes can influence President Bush because Bush appointed him on the U.S. Institute of Peace. Daniel Pipes website is at www.danielpipes.org.

We fight wars against the "nazis" and the "communists or commies" and the "chicoms". We fight wars against Japan, Germany, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, etc. We had no problem naming our enemy then, so why do we have such a problem now???

Name:	ET
To:	Indoctrination of the Proleteriat

In response to:
Just as soon as the NEA's is...

Message:
This is where our problem is...The 5th Column in America.

Here is a poster who believes the NEA is worse than the jihadis, and only until the NEA's tax exempt status is withdrawn, only then can we withdraw the tax exempt status of American clerics who command their followers to kill innocent people, including innocent Americans, for religious purposes.

Our 5th Column in America is H-U-G-E!!! It will sink our war against the jihadis unless we give the enemy a name we can all agree on. We must do this fast. Please communicate with Daniel Pipes and your local congressperson.

Name:	observer
To:	STUPID WARS

Message:
Waging a War on Terrorism is like waging a War on Corruption; a War on Prostitution; a War on Gambling; a War on Sin; a War on Greed. TOTALLY STUPID WARS THAT CAN NEVER BE WON.

Name:	observer
To:	Mentally challanged observer

In response to:
Waging a War on Terrorism is like waging a War on Corruption; a War on Prostitution; a War on Gambling; a War on Sin; a War on Greed. TOTALLY STUPID WARS THAT CAN NEVER BE WON.

Message:
You are a crackpot. Gambling, prostitution, sin and greed are personal choices. Being a terror victim is not and therefore worth fighting.

Name:	intelligent observer
To:	Mentally challanged observer

In response to:
You are a crackpot. Gambling, prostitution, sin and greed are personal choices. Being a terror victim is not and therefore worth fighting.

Message:
So you are proposing that we wage a war on all terrorism all over the world? That's impossible.

Why do you have a problem with waging a war on all jihadi terrorists? Are you a jihadi?

Name:

HILLARY SUPPORTER

In response to:
The King 'n Queen actin all royal 'n stuff

Message:
I knew that pic would end up on here. Thanks to our hateful right-wing extremists.

They are NOT sleeping. They just happened to blink when the picture was snapped.

Gerald Ford's (sitting behind Bill) eyes look closed too, but of course no one says anything about that...Go figure.

Name:	Observer
To:	Crackpot Observer

Message:
So you are proposing that we wage a war on all terrorism all over the world?

There is now a world wide war on terrorism.

That's impossible.

It is? It's being waged as we speak but it's impossible?

Why do you have a problem with waging a war on all jihadi terrorists?

I don't.

Are you a jihadi?

Are you French?

Name:	Editor
To:	HILLARY SUPPORTER

Message:
The woman at the back of the Clintons also has her eyes closed. The Clintons said they were praying, as were the others. This right-winger has selected two people praying out of a whole group that were praying with their eyes closed, to smear them. So what's new?

I guess the right-winger on this forum who posted that picture does not close his or her eyes when praying, if he prays at all, and thinks anyone who does, especially if they are liberals, are asleep.

That's what we have to deal with, HILLARY SUPPORTER. Thank you so much for your courage to come here in support of Hillary.

Name:

Observer

In response to:
Thank you so much for your courage to come here in support of Hillary.

Message:
Hillary is a dependent weakling who deserves contempt. It takes less courage and more of a mushy brain to support her.

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
Re:	Clinton portraits

Message:
The unveiling of the Clinton portraits

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Editor

In response to:
The woman at the back of the Clintons also has her eyes closed. The Clintons said they were praying, as were the others. This right-winger has selected two people praying out of a whole group that were praying with their eyes closed, to smear them. So what's new?

I guess the right-winger on this forum who posted that picture does not close his or her eyes when praying, if he prays at all, and thinks anyone who does, especially if they are liberals, are asleep.

That's what we have to deal with, HILLARY SUPPORTER. Thank you so much for your courage to come here in support of Hillary

Message:
Of course the right-winger won't post the numerous pics like this from the other day....

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Editor

In response to:
The woman at the back of the Clintons also has her eyes closed. The Clintons said they were praying, as were the others. This right-winger has selected two people praying out of a whole group that were praying with their eyes closed, to smear them. So what's new?

I guess the right-winger on this forum who posted that picture does not close his or her eyes when praying, if he prays at all, and thinks anyone who does, especially if they are liberals, are asleep.

That's what we have to deal with, HILLARY SUPPORTER. Thank you so much for your courage to come here in support of Hillary ...

Message:
Of course the right-winger won't post the numerous pics like this from the other day....

Name:

.

Message:
Moving right along now to an intemperate thought. Last week we honored a president, a Republican, who earned and deserves the credit for ending the Cold War. Ronald Reagan also reinvigorated capitalism in America, creating a growing economy that still affects us all. So ... this question. Since JFK, what have Democrats had to offer that could match the performance of Ronald Reagan? Carter? Clinton? Go ahead, tell me what they accomplished. And don't give me this nonsense about the economy under Clinton. The economy was improving when Clinton took office, and was on its way down when he left. I'm waiting.

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
Re:	Another unveiling pic

Message:

Name:

HILLARY SUPPORTER

Message:

Name:	Smedley
To:	Aegis

In response to:
We do need an accurate, non-perjorative word to describe them. But is it "Jihadi"?

Message:
If it's accurate, the term must be perjoritive.

Name:	Right Winger
To:	HILLARY SUPPORTER

In response to:
I knew that pic would end up on here. Thanks to our hateful right-wing extremists.

Message:
What is hateful about posting a picture?

Hillary Supporter, if you were not so irrational and hysterical people might take you a bit more seriously. Most you always resort to name calling?

Try this picture.

Democrats John Kerry and Bill Clinton share a laugh during the Reagan funeral.

Name:	Smedley
To:	Democrat Hatemongers
Re:	Be ashamed: Be very ashamed

Message:

Name:	Aegis
To:	ET et al
Re:	Jihadi Terrorists vs All those Other Terrorists

In response to:
So you are proposing that we wage a war on all terrorism all over the world? That's impossible. Why do you have a problem with waging a war on all jihadi terrorists? Are you a jihadi?

Message:
They are almost the same group. Why not just call them terrorists (which has no specific Muslim connotation) and then blow their damned asses off?

Name:	Milan
To:	ET

In response to:
I encourage everybody on this forum to write to Daniel Pipes meqmef@aol.com and let him know how you feel about the importance of naming the enemy (without including the word Islam or Muslim).

Message:
With all due respect, I think that Pipes puts it mildly when he says that "political" Islam is the problem (hence, the term "Islamist").

Not all Islamists are terrorists, but political Islam, regardless of how "tame" it claims to be, provides the ideological support for terrorism. Whether it is the Taliban, or so-called "civil rights" groups like CAIR.

One could argue that the somewhat inaccurate term "jihadi" might be easier to adopt by contemporary liberals rather than the more accurate term "Islamist," thereby making it easier for leftists to name the enemy, and not alienate Muslim "allies."

On the other hand, I don't care to water down the truth for liberals Muslims anymore

I think they are due for some serious shock treatment.

Name:	Baconswitch
To:	Ford Carter & Clinton RR

In response to:
The woman at the back of the Clintons also has her eyes closed. The Clintons said they were praying, as were the others

Message:
Nonsense! They were communing with Nostradamus.

Name:	Aegis
To:	ET
Re:	Perjorative?

In response to:
Which is more important? what terrorists do, or why they say they do it? Isn't the solution the same regardless?

Message:
Headlines:

Muslim Terrorists Detonate Huge Car Bomb In Baghdad

Terrorists Detonate Huge Car Bomb In Baghdad

Jihadis Detonate Huge Car Bomb In Baghdad

Religious Radicals Detonate Huge Car Bomb In Belfast (OOPS!) Baghdad

Terrorists Detonate Huge Car Bomb In Oklahoma City

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Right Winger

In response to:
the pic along with this comment "The King 'n Queen actin all royal 'n stuff"

Message:
"What is hateful about posting a picture?"

C'mon, you really need to ask that question looking at that pic along with the comment posted with it?

How about this picture...

The Clintons and Chelsea share a laugh with First Lady, Laura Bush, at the unveiling of their portraits.

Name:	Hillary! the Musical
To:	Smedley
Re:	Democratic Hatemongers

In response to:

Message:
The "No Left" sign above their heads is quite apropos...

Name:	Rainman
To:	HILLARY SUPPORTER

In response to:
I knew that pic would end up on here. Thanks to our hateful right-wing extremists. They are NOT sleeping. They just happened to blink when the picture was snapped. Gerald Ford's (sitting behind Bill) eyes look closed too, but of course no one says anything about that...Go figure.

Message:
You are very much wrong. They just happened to blink when the picture was snapped? Get real. I take it you didn't watch the uninterruped coverage and replays on C-SPAN. If you had you would have seen LIVE coverage of these two, their drowsy eyes and the napping episode. Find the C-SPAN video and see for yourself. I dare ya'.

Name:	Milan
To:	Aegis

In response to:
Why not just call them terrorists (which has no specific Muslim connotation) and then blow their damned asses off?

Message:
Indeed, offending Muslim sensibilities makes it more difficult to build alliances in the Muslim world

BUT!

It is infinitely more dangerous to ignore the ideology that supports it.

That kind of thinking can only take us back to pre-911 complacency.

The good people who happen to be Muslims might become our best allies when the become aware of how their leadership has been exploiting them.

Being cornered is no picnic, but it can build character.

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Baconswitch

In response to:
Nonsense! They were communing with Nostradamus.

Message:
Didn't you mean to post that over at the Freak Republic site? You know they would make one of their 150+ posts threads just on idiotic statments like yours. You guys could chat all night on your post...LOL!

Name:	Herve Villechaize
To:	Cruel Masters
Re:	Big tall poo poos

In response to:
They get invited. They get invited everywhere. Who cares about them, anyway? what about ME?

Message:
I am not invited. My picture is not taken. I am ignored. Shut out. No speech! No plane. I am furious. I will bite your ankles when you do not expect it. You have been warned.

Name:	Down in Front
Re:	Their ROYAL Highnesses

Message:

Hillary looks quite pleased to see that Monica has been removed from Bill's official portrait...

Name:

Photo Buff

Message:
Class

Trash

Name:	It's Good to be King
To:	Hillary's Lackey

In response to:
Didn't you mean to post that over at the Freak Republic site? You know they would make one of their 150+ posts threads just on idiotic statments like yours. You guys could chat all night on your post...LOL!

Message:
Hate speech and an ad hominem...FOR SHAME...Talk like that belongs on DUmpster

Name:	Baconswitch
To:	Hillarybot
Re:	The Gniessic Hub

In response to:
Didn't you mean to post that over at the Freak Republic site? You know they would make one of their 150+ posts threads just on idiotic statments like yours. You guys could chat all night on your post...LOL!

Message:
The universe revolves around YOU, my dear. All that is and ever will be looks inward toward YOU, the radiant centre, the fundamnetal axis of everyone and everywhere and everything.

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Rainman

In response to:
You are very much wrong. They just happened to blink when the picture was snapped? Get real. I take it you didn't watch the uninterruped coverage and replays on C-SPAN. If you had you would have seen LIVE coverage of these two, their drowsy eyes and the napping episode. Find the C-SPAN video and see for yourself. I dare ya'.

Message:
Thanks, but I already saw it! In the video they were praying (something people do from time-to-time at funerals) (/sarcasm) Also, any snapshots with eyes closed can be from blinking. I've had it happen to my self in pictures.

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Herve Villechaize

Message:
Don't you see the plane? Where's the plane?

Name:

>*<

In response to:
I knew that pic would end up on here. Thanks to our hateful right-wing extremists. They are NOT sleeping. They just happened to blink when the picture was snapped.

Message:
Earth to shill it's a VIDEO and of course people drool when they're praying...

Name:	Milan
Re:	What will this look like if we remove all reference to "Allah"?

In response to:
Why not just call them terrorists

Message:
excerpt from a MEMRI report:

…the brothers appeared from the windows [of the car] and began shouting ‘Allah Akbar,’ and shooting them. And I saw the skull of the soldier standing behind the machine gun explode before my eyes. Allah be praised. I think the driver was also killed.

....... we found a Swedish infidel. Brother Nimr cut off his head, and put it at the gate [of the building] so that it would be seen by all those entering and exiting.

“We continued in the search for the infidels, and we slit the throats of those we found among them.

.......”We began to comb the site looking for infidels. We found Philipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers the Mujahideen in the Philippines. [Likewise], we found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats too, Allah be praised. That same day, we purged Muhammad’s land of many Christians and polytheists.

”Then I phoned Al-Jazeera television, and they conducted an interview with us, that they did not release. I told them I was speaking with them from the compound, and that only the infidels were our targets.

(http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP73104)

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	It's Good to be King

In response to:
Hate speech and an ad hominem...FOR SHAME...Talk like that belongs on DUmpster

Message:
Well...what can I say? I guess I've been reading too many postings at Freak Republic and the nastiness rubs off from time-to-time.

Nah...wait, I'm not being nasty, I'm just being honest.

Name:	Knights who say "ni"
Re:	Yes but did you have your eyes open?

In response to:
Thanks, but I already saw it! In the video they were praying (something people do from time-to-time at funerals) (/sarcasm) Also, any snapshots with eyes closed can be from blinking. I've had it happen to my self in pictures.

Message:
We mustn't DARE speak against the ROYAL COUPLE....after all know one knows which of the 900 plus FBI files they have might be theirs...

And if ET has her way...we'll become a MONARCHY

Name:	Mull Singing Convention
To:	Combatants
Re:	Numerous Drowsers

In response to:
Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity Lost!!

Message:
Why all this hugger mugger about the Clintons? I'm surprised they even showed up. They and everyone else present completely failed to perceive and exploit a golden opportunity, PERHAPS OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY, to tip Betty Ford!

Name:	It's A NEW DARK AGE
Re:	bring a flashlight

In response to:
Well...what can I say? I guess I've been reading too many postings at Freak Republic and the nastiness rubs off from time-to-time. Nah...wait, I'm not being nasty, I'm just being honest.

Message:
Aw shucks, guess you can't handle "THE NEW TONE"

Name:

Patriot

In response to:
Thanks, but I already saw it! In the video they were praying (something people do from time-to-time at funerals) (/sarcasm) Also, any snapshots with eyes closed can be from blinking. I've had it happen to my self in pictures.

Message:
They were not praying, Brian Mulrooney was speaking but who cares is the point. I know people who fall asleep at work, while driving in church etc. Who cares.

What is important is Milan has returned, thank God!! He or She always brings common sense and logic. Political correctness will not win this war nor will fear and propaganda. What makes me mad is we know Iran is neck deep in supporting the terror cause as well as stirring the pot at every turn. Why? Because they want America to suffer as did the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The problem for them is America could overwhelm them in short order and probably just a serious Presidential talk to the American People as to why Iran is our eternal enemy would do enough to stablize Iraq. But then again we have an election which seems to be more important to both parties right now. It is truly sad and probably a mistake. As Reagan showed level with Americans and they will support you, try and protect us from the truth and you will lose big.

Name:

..

In response to:
Why all this hugger mugger about the Clintons? I'm surprised they even showed up.

Message:
Let's see Tom Brokejaw is in the middle of covering the Reagan procession and suddenly he turns into the "Book of the Month Club" reminding everyone that Bill's book comes out in ten, YES ten days! Who gives a flying fork????

Name:	Forum Fan
To:	Hillary Supporter
Re:	What is it with left wingers and name-calling?

In response to:
Didn't you mean to post that over at the Freak Republic site?

Message:
Hillary Support, we are really sick of your constant name-calling. Will you please grow up and stop turning this forum into your private elementary school playground.

Name:

Have you driven a Ford lately?

In response to:
They and everyone else present completely failed to perceive and exploit a golden opportunity, PERHAPS OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY, to tip Betty Ford!

Message:
How much do you tip a Betty Ford? 15%?

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Knights who say "ni"

Message:
after all know one knows which of the 900 plus FBI files they have might be theirs...

Please tell me that is a typo and you see what I am talking about (know one??)

Name:

..

Message:

Get Up...Get Down...911 is a joke in your town...

Name:

Knights who say "ni"

In response to:
after all know one knows which of the 900 plus FBI files they have might be theirs... Please tell me that is a typo and you see what I am talking about (know one??)

Message:
my bad...no-one

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	Forum Fan

In response to:
Hillary Support, we are really sick of your constant name-calling. Will you please grow up and stop turning this forum into your private elementary school playground.

Message:
^^Yeah, but that's not the case when your sides doing it, is it??

I guess you won't attack that other poster for calling DU "DUmpster"!!?? What hypocrites!!

Name:	Mull Singing Convention
To:	HYDAFL?
Re:	One does not tip First Ladies, although Mrs.Ford often tipped Gerry.

In response to:
How much do you tip a Betty Ford? 15%?

Message:
Don't offer her money, or Gerry will punch you out. I refer to the practice of "tipping" made famous by Beavis & Butthead, as in "tipping" sleeping cows.

Name:	the Peasants ARE revolting (smell bad too)
Re:	Changing the Tone

In response to:
^^Yeah, but that's not the case when your sides doing it, is it?? *I guess you won't attack that other poster for calling DU "DUmpster"!!??* What hypocrites!!

Message:
Gee, that would be a ratio of 10,000 to 1 and I did it sarcastically

Name:	Sid Shatnes
Re:	Pay per post (TM)

In response to:
Forum Cage Match!

Message:
Merci Moi vs Juulie UUlie for candlelight dinner with Bill Clinton!

Name:

...

In response to:
^^Yeah, but that's not the case when your sides doing it, is it?? I guess you won't attack that other poster for calling DU "DUmpster"!!?? What hypocrites!!

Message:
Now,now Hillary Supporter you're practicing RELATIVE MORALITY....

ET HATES RELATIVE MORALITY

Are you saying that YOUR bad behaviour will only quit when the right stops theirs?

That's what's wrong with this country....

Name:	Forum Fan
To:	Hillary Supporter

In response to:
Well...what can I say? I guess I've been reading too many postings at Freak Republic and the nastiness rubs off from time-to-time.

Message:
Look around Hillary Supporter, you are the only person participating in the childish game of name-calling.

Please stop, you are stinking up the forum.

Name:	Patriot
To:	ET

Message:
I don't like jihadis because it brings up jihad which I beleive is "holy war" and therefore wouldn't jihadi be one fighting in a holy war. I like terrorist because it represents a person who kills innocents and babies indiscrimenently for political means.

Name:	Milan
To:	thoughtful conservatives and liberal refusniks

In response to:
This is where our problem is...The 5th Column in America.

Message:
Five days ago, I "raided" the Democratic Underground website ().

Those of you who know what I am talking about are probably gagging now. I learned of this site by way of its nemesis: the pro-Israeli, anti-Islamofascist site "Little Green Footballs."

Putting it mildly, I would characterize the DU forum as little more than a "bleeding heart circle jerk," not so much because of the people who dominate the site, but because of the strict forum rules for kicking out participants who do not tow the party line.

Why did I do this? Because these are the people who really aren't getting it, and as someone who did not grow up Muslim, I do not feel qualified to plant the seeds of doubt in a Muslim.

However, as a liberal "refusnik" I feel very qualified to win over the hearts and minds of militant Islam's biggest enablers: bleeding heart liberals.

Unfortunately, I got banned from the site only four days after I joined. Under a topic created by Muslims "Please consider context when quoting form the Quran." A couple of Muslims were raving over the "wonders" of the koran and accusing those who put it down as people with delusions of "religious superiority."

Below is the post that got me banned:

.

.

"This is a gross oversimplification of full range people who dislike Islam.

First of all, let’s discard the comfortable, but very dangerous assumption that all religions are basically the same.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the religion of the Aztecs, where the sun god required human sacrifice is nothing less than naked barbarism. The fact that the Aztecs achieved an impressive level of technology and art does nothing to mitigate the cruelty of their religious belief.

For my part, I am a secular humanist who was raised as a Christian.

Well aware of the violent stories in the Old Testament, I once believed that Islam was no worse than any other mainstream religion. I also had (and still have) Muslim colleagues and friends who I trust with my life.

Even shortly after 9/11, I assumed that most of today's violence in the name of Islam could be attributed to Saudi-financed Wahhabism. However, one thing did not add up: Wahhabism has nothing to do with Iran's Islamofascist thugocracy because these mullahs are Shia Muslims.

Consequently, I resolved to forget the spin and read the Koran for myself. Ironically (based on a wager I made with my sister) I had decided to read it in order to prove that Islam was no worse than Christianity for inciting violence.

I lost the wager, but gained a hidden world of knowledge.

I came upon the verse instructing Muslims not to befriend Christians and Jews, then came the sura recommending wife-beating, then the verses reminding the reader again and again to make war on unbelievers. I was shocked, disgusted, and angry at all the so-called "experts" who had been whitewashing the Koran with all these lame excuses about "context," and with never hint as to why Koran is used to justify so much violence in the world today.

Believe it or not, my revised opinion of Islam has not in any way affected my opinion of my Muslim acquaintances.

I believe that decent people will avoid conflict, and human nature gives most people the ability to transcend the bad things they learn. Most of all, it is not fair for me to judge Muslims for clinging to the only God they were taught to accept since childhood.

However, that being said, there is no doubt in my mind that Islam does much more than either Christianity or Judaism in cultivating intolerance and violence in people who are so inclined.

Furthermore, mealy-mouthed apologists like Karen Armstrong do Muslims a grave disservice by being so overly protective of their sensibilities, thereby denying them the benefits of no-holds barred debate that we Western liberals so much take for granted.

For God's sake; They are people just like us!

Stop treating them like children and let them experience for themselves the pain and struggle of having doubts about their faith.

Just as we did when some of us became agnostics, atheists, and even born-again Christians."

.

.

I am disappointed at having been banned so soon, but am encouraged that the post stayed up for 3 days before it was flagged by the PeeCee thought-police.

At least some people saw it.

But alas, I used up my only chance!

But what about you?

The key to staying in the game is NUANCE and RESTRAINT.

Yes I know that "nuance" is a term used to ridicule wishy-washy liberals, but we have to play their game (As you see, even my fairly tame post got me banned).

I would be more than happy to edit (right here on this forum) a post anyone is considering for the DU (No joke).

Since you may get only one chance, it is best we do all we can to make sure it is a potential "coup de grace" for the moral relativism that is eating away at the true spirit of liberalism

...and degrading every value that makes America so great.

Name:	Forum Fan
To:	Hillary Supporter

In response to:
Look around Hillary Supporter, you are the only person participating in the childish game of name-calling.

Please stop, you are stinking up the forum.

Message:
Hillary supporter is going from name-calling to relative morality. This is liberal forum and therefore the bar is set higher for liberals. It is sad when you invoke the monkey see, monkey do excuse. Currently you are the only one on the forum name-calling and playing the relative morality game.

Give it a rest.

Name:	Dimitri Lazlo
Re:	Irregular Warfare

In response to:
I like terrorist because it represents a person who kills innocents and babies indiscrimenently for political reasons.

Message:
Or any other reason.

Name:	Forum Fan
To:	Hillary Supporter

In response to:
Please tell me that is a typo and you see what I am talking about (know one??)

Message:
So now Hillary Supporter is the Spelling Nazi.

Hillary Supporter, you are on a roll tonight.

Name:

Forum Fan

In response to:
I know people who fall asleep at work, while driving in church etc.

Message:
I have to make a stand somewhere...I am against driving in church while alseep.

Name:	Patriot
To:	Dimitri Lazlo

In response to:
Or any other reason.

Message:
Good point, you are exactly right.

Name:	Ralph Nader
To:	Citizen Activists Everywhere
Re:	WASHINGTON MUST ACT!!!!!!

In response to:
I have to make a stand somewhere...I am against driving in church while alseep.

Message:
We need a massive new federal initiative to address this long-hidden menace of sleeping drivers in church! This crisis takes on added urgency when one considers that the under-reported epidemic of driving in church asleep has coincided with the massive invasion of the giant SUVs!!

Name:	Patriot
To:	Forum Fan

In response to:
I know people who fall asleep at work, while driving in church etc

I have to make a stand somewhere...I am against driving in church while alseep.

Message:
Sorry damn public education! I guess I should have put a comma in there. Course what is "alseep" anyways? LOL, I saw it after I posted and waited to get slammed.

Name:	Patriot
To:	Milan

In response to:
As you see, even my fairly tame post got me banned

Message:
I don't know your post was well versed but I think what got you banned was making sense on that website, and not so tame, rather biting and inciteful, I think. I only signed on once read for a few minutes and decided they wouldn't enjoy my posts. Good job though on the three days!

Name:	Otter
To:	The Stratosphere
Re:	hillary.org

Message:
Wow. I just found this site. It's like falling down the rabbit-hole, so forgive me if I violate the rules in any way. Executions after croquet. I clicked on the inscribe-your-name-in-history link and find that Americans are hungry for more of the Clintons. I'm really, really curious why we want to return to the less "phallocentric" (somebody actually used this word) days when private investigators smeared private citizens who stood in the way of The Program. I was sort of enjoying not having to think that American people who disagree with me are morally evil. I'm not a Republican, but if I were I would be squeezing my hands together, saying, "Pleeeaassse run.... Oh, pleeeeaaasssee run...."

Name:	Rainman
To:	HILLARY SUPPORTER

In response to:
In the video they were praying (something people do from time-to-time at funerals)

Message:
Oh, that is sweet! Please, if you want to defend the napping Clintons at least come up with something that won't offend my intelligence. ask dale. hill and the thomasons had his files and tried to use them as weapons-but unlike them-he was clean. they were shocked that he was as everyone they know is dirty.

Name:	Scroll Mouse
To:	Milan
Re:	Into the DU Arena

In response to:
Diversity = Perversity

Message:
You are a better man than I.

The regulars on that site are the most narrow minded people on the internet!

They ALL have their minds made up on every subject. It reminds me of a bunch of back slappers agreeing with each other.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
but because of the strict forum rules for kicking out participants who do not tow the party line.

Message:
The moderators on that site aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.

Name:	magpie
Re:	I love this story!

In response to:
Meryl Streeps's Hillary Problem

Message:
posted 06/13/04

Paramount Pictures is worried that Meryl Streep's edgy, chilling performance as a U.S. Senator in The Manchurian Candidate, which opens at the end of next month, is too close to the real Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a pal inside the studio tells me.

As a result, studio honchos have asked director Jonathan Demme to make little recuts and trims here and there to remove some of the more Hillaryesque gestures and expressions in the flick.

"Meryl is brilliantly scary and evil," my Paramount buddy says, who's seen the film through several rough assemblages and later cuts. "But she clearly seems like she's playing Senator Hillary, not just any woman senator. It's also something test audiences have commented about."

It doesn't help, either, that Meryl has a Hillary hairdo and wears Hillarian (faux pearls and pantsuits? soooooieeee!) clothes and jewelry.

"Meryl has the Hillary hand gestures totally down pat," my insider tells me. "I don't know whether this is something she picked up subconsciously or an idea Jonathan gave her, but she's totally dead on. You feel like you're watching Hillary Clinton conspire to take over the world. The studio's motives in requesting the de-Hillaryization are because of a feared backlash. "They don't want to look like they're Democrat-bashing," the insider says. "They want this to be seen as a serious thriller and not something campy."

Indeed, the Paramount brass are strongly in the Democrat fold, as is much of Hollywood. Paramount poobah Sherry Lansing has appeared at several fundraising events here in Tinseltown hosted by Mrs. Ketchup Kerry.

If you're scratching your head and trying to remember a woman senator in the 1962 version of Manchurian, your memory isn't failing you.

The new film is not technically a remake of the classic but instead goes back to Condon's original source novel. The nefarious senator's wife, played brilliantly by Angela Lansbury in the older film version, is now an evil lady senator who orchestrates her son's ascendancy to Vice President of the United States.

Denzel Washington suits up as the brainwashed soldier, and Liev Schreiber plays the villainous veep.

Meryl's icy performance is also a safe bet for an Oscar nod, considering her catnip factor with the Academy. She's been nominated a record thirteen times and has won twice.

"The movie is kind of a ho-hum thriller," my Paramole tells me. "A serviceable script and journeyman directing. But Meryl totally stands out. She makes the movie worthwhile. It's absolutely electric when she's onscreen."

Name:

FOM

In response to:
notice that she does have her sticky hands all over the white house stuff.

Message:
It looks as if Bill is playing pocket pool while she is doing the pilfering.

Name:

magpie

In response to:
Kerry arrested for stalking McCain

THIS IS A JOKE!

Arizona senator seeks restraining order

Message:
Washington, D.C. police arrested presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry yesterday after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) complained that Mr. Kerry was “stalking” him in an attempt to persuade him to join the Democratic ticket.

Police officers apprehended Sen. Kerry as he was shimmying up a drainpipe on the outside of Sen. McCain’s Washington townhouse, attempting to gain access to a second-story window.

“John is a dear friend of mine, and I was flattered that he wanted me to join the ticket — at first,” Mr. McCain told reporters. “But over the past few weeks he has gotten downright creepy.”

Sen. McCain said that Sen. Kerry’s courtship of him started as a series of friendly phone conversations, but then the calls started coming more frequently and often in the middle of the night.

After Sen. McCain placed himself on a “do not call” list to fend off future entreaties from Sen. Kerry, the increasingly impetuous Democrat resorted to more desperate measures, even disguising himself as a Domino’s Pizza deliveryman.

Now that Sen. Kerry is in police custody and undergoing psychiatric evaluation, Sen. McCain can breathe easy — for the moment.

The Arizona senator confirmed today that he has requested a restraining order keeping Sen. Kerry at least one hundred yards away from him at all times.

For his part, Sen. Kerry told reporters that he remained “optimistic” about persuading Mr. McCain and that such a restraining order would not ultimately prevent the Arizona senator from joining the ticket.

Name:	NuTone
To:	Newdow
Re:	.....one nation, under GOD

Message:

Kerry gives a half hearted "thumbs up" from his, uh... from the family S.U.V. after leaving his photo-op visit to the casket of President Reagan.

1984 Flashback: Kerry calls Reagan Presidency "Moral Darkness" in convention speech
Fri Jun 11 2004 12:32:42 ET

*** The Boston Globe Archives | July 21, 1988 | Walter V. Robinson ***

ATLANTA -- Michael Stanley Dukakis, a self-described "very, very long- shot" candidate just 16 months ago, last night became the Democratic nominee for president and his party's best hope to win the White House since 1976. Earlier, Sen. John F. Kerry took to the convention hall podium, telling the delegates that the "moral darkness" of President Reagan's presidency will soon end.

"A Republican president once reminded us, 'There is absolutely nothing to be said for a government of powerful men with the ideals of pawnbrokers,' " Kerry said.

"That president's name was Theodore Roosevelt. And today Theodore Roosevelt would be ashamed to be a Republican."

Said Kerry: "It is time we once again had a government of laws and not of lawbreakers."

Name:

NuTone

Message:
Jihadist Crowds Celebrate 13 Deaths in Iraq Blast

Jun 14, 5:30 PM

By ROBERT H. REID

Name:	NuTone
Re:	e-mail

In response to:
CBS RADIO HEAD ORDERS 'MUST CARRY' TO ALL STATIONS FOR CLINTON BOOK SPECIAL

Message:

Mon Jun 14 2004

From: Rivers, Steve
To: @Infinity PD News; @Infinity PD Talk
Cc: @Infinity GMs Eastern Mid-Size; @Infinity GMs Eastern Region; Sykes, John; Hollander, Joel L; @Infinity Regional VPs; @Infinity Regional Directors of Engineering; Individual; HILLARY SUPPORTER; Morley Saffer; Howard Stern
Subject: Clinton Broadcast
Importance: High

I wanted to give all of you a heads up regarding a "MUST CARRY" event coming up with former president Clinton. Mark Mason will be forwarding you the vital information, the 800#, link information, etc. very soon. There is a lot of work being done behind the scenes at the moment. The event will be 60 minutes, and a format clock is being designed to accommodate 12 minutes of commercials. Bill will be discussing his book and taking calls from listeners across America. Your listeners. At this time we are trying to get advance audio passages from the book that you will be able to run a week ahead to promote your broadcast.

Stand by for further details and thanks for the cooperation on what could be a huge event for us.

Riv
Steve Rivers
President/Programming
Infinity Broadcasting

Name:	ET
To:	Milan

In response to:
However, as a liberal "refusnik" I feel very qualified to win over the hearts and minds of militant Islam's biggest enablers: bleeding heart liberals.

Message:
That post of yours about your short-lived experience with DU was a real education for me!!! And they call themselves the Democratic Underground when there is nothing democratic about them at all! They are, in fact, the antithisis of democracy.

Be persistent. If you returned under another name how would they know it's you? Do they send a confirmation email you must respond to? Or do they identify you by your IP address. If it is your email address I can provide you with some email addresses that will be aliased(linked/routed)to your real email address. If it is your IP address anonymizer.com can provide you with software that changes your IP address. This service costs about $25 I think (I forget) but I understand there is also free software available.

Why I advised you to be persistent is because you need to discover how to win their hearts and minds. What is the path to this event? This is important because we need to bring down the 5th Column in this country that is operating proudly, openly and with impunity.

I have the distinction of being blocked from Lucianne.com and the Freak Republic :)

Name:

NuTone

Message:

Bush pays rare tribute to Clinton WASHINGTON (AFP) - In a rare election-year political truce, US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) warmly paid tribute to Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and even plugged his forthcoming memoirs at his formal White House portrait unveiling.   AFP/NBC/File Photo   "Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president," Bush said in a speech at the ceremony.   Bush and First Lady Laura Bush sat with Clinton, first-lady-turned Senator Hillary Clinton (HillaNews - web sites) and their daughter Chelsea as the former first couple's individual portraits were unveiled before being hung in the White House.   More.....

Name:	ET
To:	Patriot

In response to:
I don't like jihadis because it brings up jihad which I beleive is "holy war" and therefore wouldn't jihadi be one fighting in a holy war. I like terrorist because it represents a person who kills innocents and babies indiscrimenently for political means.

Message:
But that's exactly why you should like it. The jihadis kill innocent people with impunity because they believe that they are participating in a holy war (jihad) by doing so. They believe that this is what Allah wants them to do.

If there was no such thing in the Koran as "jihad" there would be no "holy war" and no killing of innocent people for Allah.

Name:

Jihadi Poster Girl

Message:

TIME MAGAZINE

2004 PERSON OF THE YEAR