1 Something definitely seems to have been lost in the translation. In case democratic lawyers aren't taught this at law school, criticism is not an act of war. Having your crazy neighbour keep threatening to throw nukes over your fence unless you give him stuff is. Well, unless you're into that kind of thing. Whatever floats your boat.

2 What the....?

3 They don't sound any crazier than American Democratic Lawyers.

4 Could they possible have meant "hogwash", "claptrap", or maybe just "hooey"?

5 Well, lil' Kim did kill his last translator in that movie -didn't he? Guess there is a shortage.

6 Poppycock!

7 hullabaloo!

8 Brew-ha-ha! Tempest in a teacup! Bullshit!!!!!!

9 I think our Ambassador in Seoul was the same guy who moved the secret Weather Machine over the DPRK and ruined the rice crop this year. That is, before Bush took it away from him and moved it to New Orleans. Now he is spouting Malarkey!! No wonder these North Koreans are so pissed off.

10 I think this malarkey is about to cause a kerfuffle.

11 Monkeyshines, perhaps? How does one shine a monkey, anyway?

12 "Malarky" would be the right word. It seemed typo-graphical error.

13 No, "malarky" is a variant, the preferred spelling is "malarkey". No one seems to know where the word came from, though.

14 I haven't heard the word in years - but when I did it was being used by Irish-Americans, Irish, and some Scots if that helps. I'm assuming it's Celt.

15 It came to America with the Scots-Irish, then later the Irish-Irish.

16 Agent Smith has broken through to the Korean database and has a direct line to Pyongyang's only working workplace - the propaganda factory-- http://www.nk-news.net/index.php Agent Brown has found the fountain of perpetual insults -- http://www.nk-news.net/extras/insult_generator.php

17 Agent Smith was rudely insulted by the Koreans: "You swollen-headed beast, we will mercilessly crush you with the weapon of singlehearted unity!" Agent Brown was berated too: "You bloodthirsty flunkey, your accusation against the DPRK is no more than barking at the moon!" Agent Jones was smacked with the coup de grace: "You half-baked warmonger!"

1 Whats to say here? Ok. It would be nice if everyone in the middle east got along. Of course, we really know that it will not happen as long as Islam says I kill you in the name of God. A cover up for I kill you for other reasons. Land, power, wealth, jealousy, race etc:

2 >>>How does a Jew respond to seeing his people murdered routinely by Arab Muslims? That depends. Is he a Leftwing Jew? In which case he'll wring his hands and blame it on christian evangelicals.

3 Agent Brown says they have been killing each other for three thousand years, and a purple finger will stop it?

4 Hey agent from S.T.U.P.I.D., all of humanity have been killing one another for countless millenia for reasons various and sundry, and we occasionally decide to stop killing one another for as many reasons, so yes, to put it in terms childish enough for you to understand, a purple finger just might actually do it.

5 Agent Smith says to Improbulus, the original program your species rejected, so this one has all the grotesqueries you wanted so bad. Keep pulling purple fingers in tight quarters and smell the air quality.

6 Thanks for the shout-out. My next hope is that the US will someday allow Israel to aggressively pursue its foes to the same degree that the US does. Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59711,00.html): Tuesday, August 06, 2002 WASHINGTON — The turnover of territory from Israel to the Palestinian Authority won’t do anything to improve security, according to the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. That’s because the Palestinian Authority is involved with terrorist activities , Rumsfeld said during a “Town Hall” meeting with Pentagon civilian and military workers. “There is no question but that the Palestinian Authority has been involved with terrorist activities,” Rumsfeld said, adding that Israel can’t turn over territory to “an entity that has a track record” like the Palestinian Authority. Rumsfeld also did not call on Israel to abandon Jewish settlements , as has been a provision of most of the peace plans emerging, including one from the Bush administration. The West Bank and Gaza were seized during the 1967 Middle East War in which Egypt, Jordan and Syria sided against the Jewish state. Israel won, and U.N. resolutions since then have called for a return to pre-war borders. “My feelings about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a war,” Rumsfeld said. “Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved in it once it started. They all jumped in and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in the conflict.” Rumsfeld said that Israel repeatedly has offered to pull back but “at no point has it been agreed upon by the other side…” “It seems to me, focusing on settlements at the present time misses the point,” he said. “The real point is to get an effective interlocutor. The real point is to get a condition so that you can have a peace agreement. Why are we acting in league with Condhimmi Rice and the Saudi-pensioned State Department instead of Rummy??? Rummy-Hanson '08! There is a policy that the US should say clearly: wear the bandana or wave the banner of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the like and you choose to be framed by a crosshaired scope and that hiding behind civilians puts the civilian death on the heads of those who used them NOW and FOREVER.

7 shaking in my boots

8 shaking in my boots

1 A John McCain discussion ... I like McCain - alway have - but voted against him in his primary run of 2000. He is a Republican - not a RINO - who tends to wander off by himself often enough. He is a conservative (YES if you look closely) on many issues - and he wanders on others. Strange dude. The media and lib/left fawn over him because - well er - he's not George Bush. they have an anti-Bush thing going. They have a bizarre tendency to project their own beliefs and ideas onto others - assuming they agree & or support them. I believe its some kind of internal reinforcement thing. People like McCain (Powell too) don't blow them off when they do this. Why? I dunno. Maybe it's their personalities whatever. I do know from watching them both closely that they do occasionally and coyly stick it to them - and when its done the media doesn't report it. Enough of that for now. McCain is an issue Republicans and Conservatives are going to have to re-explore eventually.

2 They went about it without feeling the need to prove to the world that America is the locus of all evil in the universe like the Democrats do. That's patriotism. Not the bullshit the Traitorcrats call "dissent" but which is really just shitting on their country 24/7.

3 Amen JC. Actually I've never gotten that Bush is radical crap. He makes a lot of sense. Now a bit stubborn I'll give you. He thinks big like Reagan but radical or nutso I'm afraid not. Reagan got the same crap said about him but in the end he was right.

4 ummm is this the same McCain that was earlier called "Stockholm McCain" The traitor McCain ? And what kind of a compromise was it ? From what I read Bush just went belly up on this one. And what about the "ticking A-bomb scenario" ? Torture the suspect defuse the bomb save the city. Then put the torturer in jail. In the death penalty discussion it seemed acceptable to have a few innocents wrongly convicted well here is just one more.

5 Uh, John Ryan, a comma or two would help me decipher your insane mumblings.

6 Yes, Stockholm John. I said it then, and I say it now. He is a piece of shit traitor who is only trying this shit so he can get the Dhimmicrap nomination in '08, because he knows there's no way in hell he's gonna ever be President on a GOP ticket. He is actively working with the dhimmis, and thwarting the war effort. Fuck. Him. I hope he has a goddamn stroke soon.

7 Terrorists must be laughing themselves silly over this. U.S. "Tell us what we want or...or...or we'll be ever so cross with you!"

8 john ryan: Before you go berating people, pay attention to whom you are directing your ire. Just because you hear one person articulate an opinion doesn't mean that those you hear say something else are the same ones. We're all different people. Contrary to popular belief, this blog is not a "collective" like you see in lefty, borg blogs. mkay? Now, back to the topic. As far as McCain goes - I'm not quite ready to trust him. I still don't have any concrete evidence that he won't drag our domestic policies to the left.

9 McCain has succeeded in de facto defining torture as any discomfort, of any degree, of any duration to which a detainee is subjected while in U.S. custody. Anything less than 5-star spa treatment for terrorists can now be called "torture."

10 Actually no that's not true the definition is not in the bill but will be set in a policy directive by the Justice Department and also it preserves the executive power to do what is needed when needed. Also it provides legal assistance to US operatives. Before they had to contract private insurance. In other words you could have been ordered to break the law and if prosecuted you were on your own. Now we at least will provide legal aid to those accused.

11 Now we at least will provide legal aid to those accused. And they wonder why enlistment is down. Recall that al Qaeda training manuals instruct Islamonutters to cry Torture! McCain should stick to what he does best, holding a specimen bottle for Jason Giambi

12 Howie is, to put it mildly, far more optimistic than I am. The McCain "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights" explicitly extends Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment Rights to Al Qaeda detainees, and explicitly relies on UN definitions of inhuman and degrading treatment. At least one UN official has already said that even holding detainees incommunicado is torture. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that depriving prisoners of recreational opportunities can be cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

13 Not to mention, the left has been supremely evasive in refusing to specify whether certain techniques of coercive interrogation constitute torture, including sensory deprivation, uncomfortable but non-injurous body positioning, isolation, too cold and too hot temperatures, and sleep deprivation. All of these have been called torture by Amendment supporters including Andrew Sullivan, the New York Times and Dick Durbin. Doubtless, the authors of Howie's "policy directive" will be under political pressure to ban these practices. Which brings us right back to spa treatment.

14 Exactly, it's like bogus police brutality raps & the racial profiling scam, which has the effect of making cops hesitant to stop black suspects, or, in this case, sending a warning shot over the entire US military: yes you're fighting a war, but you'd better keep your white gloves on. A disaster

15 Yes I am optimistic. I don't think we use torture, never did. However the perception was that we did. So all this bill really does is make a statment and turn it over to the Dept of Justice to determine what is and what is not and publish that standard. Also the new protections for CIA are the same ones that were already in use for the military. I know some will never agree with me and thats fine. I may be over optimistic but you may also be a bit over pessimistic. I think we can still get what we want when we need to. I mean injecting some bastard with dope is hardly cruel. I don't want to waste our good name when some guy some place mistreats people for the hell of it with no clear gain. In other words we can loose more than we gain if we "step over the line" and it becomes public. So I think it's good that we left the Commander in chief some wiggle room. There may be times when information is so valuable that we may have to result to whatever it takes. But to waste our reputation on little fish is not too bright either. Personally I blame the men in Abu Graib who did the big stupid. It was a mistake and it hurts. Trying to fix that is not so bad.

16 Between the filibustering of the Patriot Act, and McCain's "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights." I think today is the day the War on Terror ended. We just decided to quit. Defending way of life just isn't worth it if terrorists are subjected to even temporary discomfort or inconvenience.

17 I take back what I said about Stockholm John having a stroke. I hope McCain and all other traitors live long enough to meet justice. Some days I wonder if it's a bad thing that the one plane that crashed in Pennsylvania didn't make it to the capitol, because if it had, at least we'd be rid of most, if not all, of the parasites we call Congress.

18 It's always a fight to find out what the government doesn't want us to know. And no one has done more to fight for open democracy or done more to see that the Freedom of Information Act fulfills its promise than the Archive. The fight goes back a long way. You'll find a fine account of it in Herbert Foerstel's book, Freedom of Information and the Right to Know: The Origins and Application of the Freedom of Information Act (Greenwood Press, 1999). Foerstel tells us that although every other 18th century democratic constitution includes the public's right to information, there were two exceptions: Sweden and the United States. But in 1955 the American Society of Newspaper Editors decided to battle government secrecy. The Washington Post's James Russell Wiggins and Representative John Moss of California teamed up to spearhead that fight. President Kennedy subsequently resisted their efforts. When he asked reporters to censor themselves on the grounds that these were times of "clear and present danger," journalists were outraged and agreed that his administration represented a low point in their battle. But Congressman Moss refused to give up, and in 1966 he managed to pass the Freedom of Information Act, although in a crippled and compromised form. I was there, as the White House press secretary, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the act on July 4, 1966; signed it with language that was almost lyrical—"With a deep sense of pride that the United States is an open society in which the people's right to know is cherished and guarded." Well, yes, but I knew that LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of the Freedom of Information Act; hated the thought of journalists rummaging in government closets and opening government files; hated them challenging the official view of reality. He dug in his heels and even threatened to pocket veto the bill after it reached the White House. And he might have followed through if Moss and Wiggins and other editors hadn't barraged him with pleas and petitions. He relented and signed "the damned thing," as he called it (I'm paraphrasing what he actually said in case C-Span is here.) He signed it, and then went out to claim credit for it. Because of the Freedom of Information Act and the relentless fight by the Archive to defend and exercise it, some of us have learned more since leaving the White House about what happened on our watch than we knew when we were there. Funny, isn't it, how the farther one gets from power, the closer one often gets to the truth? Consider the recent disclosures about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. These documents, now four decades old, seem to confirm that there was no second attack on U.S. ships on the 4th of August and that President Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam on the basis of intelligence that either had been "mishandled" or "misinterpreted" or had been deliberately skewed by subordinates to provide him the excuse he was looking for to attack North Vietnam. I was not then a player in foreign policy and had not yet become the President's press secretary—my portfolio was politics and domestic policy. But I was there beside him during those frenetic hours. I heard the conversations from the President's side, although I could not hear what was being told to him by the Situation Room or the Pentagon. I accept now that it was never nailed down for certain that there was a second attack, but I believe that LBJ thought there had been. It is true that for months he had wanted to send a message to Ho Chi Minh that he meant business about standing behind America's commitment to South Vietnam. It is true that he was not about to allow the hawkish Barry Goldwater to outflank him on national security in the fall campaign. It is also true that he often wrestled with the real or imaginary fear that liberal Democrats, whose hearts still belonged to their late fallen leader, would be watching and sizing him up according to their speculation of how Kennedy would have decided the moment. So yes, I think the President's mind was prepared to act if the North Vietnamese presented him a tit-for-tat opportunity. But he wasn't looking for a wider war at that time, only a show of resolve, a flexing of muscles, the chance to swat the fly when it landed. Nonetheless, this state of mind plus cloudy intelligence proved a combustible and tragic mix. In the belief that a second attack suggested an intent on the part of an adversary that one attack alone left open, the President did order strikes against North Vietnam, thus widening the war. He asked Congress for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that was passed three days later and opened the way for future large-scale commitments of American forces. Haste is so often the enemy of good judgment. Rarely does it produce such costly consequences as it did this time. But did the President order-up fabricated evidence to suit his wish? No. Did subordinates rig the evidence to support what they thought he wanted to do? It's possible, but I swear I cannot imagine who they might have been - certainly it was no one in the inner-circle, as far as I could tell. I don't believe this is what happened. Did the President act prematurely? Yes. Was the response disproportionate to the events? Yes. Did he later agonize over so precipitous a decision? Yes. "For all I know," he said the next year, "our Navy was shooting at whales out there." By then, however, he thought he had other reasons to escalate the war, and did. All these years later, I find it painful to wonder what could have been if we had waited until the fog lifted, or had made public what we did and didn't know, trusting the debate in the press, Congress, and the country to help us shape policies more aligned with events and with the opinion of an informed public. I had hoped we would learn from experience. Two years ago, prior to the invasion of Iraq, I said on the air that Vietnam didn't make me a dove; it made me read the Constitution. Government's first obligation is to defend its citizens. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is permissible for our government to launch a preemptive attack on another nation. Common sense carries one to the same conclusion: it's hard to get the leash back on once you let the wild dogs of war out of the kennel. Our present Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has a plaque on his desk that reads, "Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords." Perhaps, but while war is sometimes necessary, to treat it as sport is obscene. At best, war is a crude alternative to shrewd, disciplined diplomacy and the forging of a true alliance acting in the name of international law. Unprovoked, "the noblest sport of war" becomes the slaughter of the innocent. I left the White House in early 1967 to practice journalism. Because our beat is the present and not the past—we are journalists after all, not historians—I put those years and events behind me, except occasionally to reflect on how they might inform my reporting and analysis of what's happening today. I was chastened by our mistakes back then, and chagrined now when others fail to learn from them. The country suffers not only when presidents act hastily in secret, but when the press goes along. I keep an article in my files by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon ("30 Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War") written a decade ago and long before the recent disclosures. They might have written it over again during the buildup for the recent invasion of Iraq. On August 5, 1964, the headline in The Washington Post read: "American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers: Move Taken to Halt Aggression." That, of course, was the official line, spelled out verbatim and succinctly on the nation's front pages. The New York Times proclaimed in an editorial that the President "went to the people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans "to face the fact that the communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have escalated the hostilities." It was not only Lyndon Johnson whose mind was predisposed to judge on the spot, with half a loaf. It was also those reporters and editors who were willing to accept the official view of reality as the truth of the matter. In his book, Censored War, Daniel Hallin found that journalists at the time had a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, but "it simply wasn't used." Tim Wells, who wrote a compelling book on The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, told Cohen and Solomon it was yet another case of "the media's almost exclusive reliance on the U.S. government officials as sources of information," as well as "their reluctance to question official pronouncements on national security issues." There are many branches on the family tree of journalism where Judith Miller blossomed. I can imagine that one day the National Security Archive will turn up a document explaining how reporters waited outside the Garden of Eden to snap up Adam and Eve's account of what had happened inside, but never bothered to interview the snake. I am taking your time with all this hoping you will understand why I have become something of a fundamentalist on the First Amendment protection of an independent press, a press that will resist the seductions, persuasions, and intimidations of people who hold great power—over life and death, war and peace, taxes, the fate of the environment—and would exercise it undisturbed, in great secrecy, if they are allowed. In a telling moment, the Bush Administration opposed the declassification of 40 year-old Gulf of Tonkin documents. Why? Because they fear uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. And well they might. Just as absurd is their opposition to the release of two intelligence briefings given to President Johnson in 1965 and 1968. The CIA claims they should be kept secret on the grounds that their release could impair its mission by revealing its sources and methods of 40 years ago. That's bull. The actual methods used by the CIA back then have largely been declassified, which is why I signed a statement in your support when the National Security Archive went to court over this matter. I was as disappointed as you were when the federal judge, who ruled this past summer, preferred the government's penchant for secrecy to the people's right to know what goes on in their name and with their money. It has to be said: there has been nothing in our time like the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy. This may seem self-serving coming from someone who worked for two previous presidents who were no paragons of openness. But I am only one of legions who have reached this conclusion. See the recent pair of articles by the independent journalist, Michael Massing, in The New York Review of Books. He concludes, "The Bush Administration has restricted access to public documents as no other before it." And he backs this up with evidence. For example, a recent report on government secrecy by the watchdog groupOpenTheGovernment.org says the Feds classified a record 15.6 million new documents in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 81% over the year before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. What's more, 64% of Federal Advisory Committee meetings in 2004 were completely closed to the public. No wonder the public knows so little about how this administration has deliberately ignored or distorted reputable scientific research to advance its political agenda and the wishes of its corporate patrons. I'm talking about the suppression of that EPA report questioning aspects of the White House Clear Skies Act; research censorship at the departments of health and human services, interior and agriculture; the elimination of qualified scientists from advisory committees on kids and lead poisoning, reproductive health, and drug abuse; the distortion of scientific knowledge on emergency contraception; the manipulation of the scientific process involving the Endangered Species Act; and the internal sabotage of government scientific reports on global warming It's an old story: the greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption. This is the administration that has illegally produced phony television news stories with fake reporters about Medicare and government anti-drug programs, then distributed them to local TV stations around the country. In several markets, they aired on the six o'clock news with nary a mention that they were propaganda bought and paid for with your tax dollars. This is the administration that paid almost a quarter of a million dollars for rightwing commentator Armstrong Williams to talk up its No Child Left Behind education program and bankrolled two other conservative columnists to shill for programs promoting the President's marriage initiative. This is the administration that tacitly allowed inside the White House a phony journalist under the nom de plume of Jeff Gannon to file Republican press releases as legitimate news stories and to ask President Bush planted questions to which he could respond with preconceived answers. And this is the administration that has paid over 100 million dollars to plant stories in Iraqi newspapers and disguise the source, while banning TV cameras at the return of caskets from Iraq as well as prohibiting the publication of photographs of those caskets—a restriction that was lifted only following a request through the Freedom of Information Act. Ah, FOIA. Obsessed with secrecy, Bush and Cheney have made the Freedom of Information Act their number one target, more fervently pursued for elimination than Osama Bin Laden. No sooner had he come to office than George W. Bush set out to eviscerate both FOIA and the Presidential Records Act. He has been determined to protect his father's secrets when the first Bush was Vice President and then President—as well as his own. Call it Bush Omerta. This enmity toward FOIA springs from deep roots in their extended official family. Just read your own National Security Archive briefing book #142, edited by Dan Lopez, Tom Blanton, Meredith Fuchs, and Barbara Elias. It is a compelling story of how in 1974 President Gerald Ford's chief of staff—one Donald Rumsfeld—and his deputy chief of staff—one Dick Cheney—talked the President out of signing amendments that would have put stronger teeth in the Freedom of Information Act. As members of the House of Representatives, Congressman Rumsfeld actually co-sponsored the Act and as a Congressman, Ford voted for it. But then Richard Nixon was sent scuttling from the White House in disgrace after the secrets of Watergate came spilling out. Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted no more embarrassing revelations of their party's abuse of power; and they were assisted in their arguments by yet another rising Republican star, Antonin Scalia, then a top lawyer at the Justice Department. Fast forward to 2001, when in the early months of George W. Bush's Administration, Vice President Cheney invited the tycoons of oil, gas, and coal to the White House to divide up the spoils of victory. They had, after all, contributed millions of dollars to the cause, and as Cheney would later say of tax cuts for the fraternity of elites who had financed the campaign, they deserved their payoff. But to keep the plunder from disgusting the public, the identities of the participants in the meetings were kept secret. The liberal Sierra Club and the conservative Judicial Watch filed suit to open this insider trading to public scrutiny. But after losing in the lower court, the White House asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Lo and behold, hardly had Justice Scalia returned from a duck hunting trip with the Vice President—the blind leading the blind to the blind— than the Supreme Court upheld the White House privilege to keep secret the names of those corporate predators who came to slice the pie. You have to wonder if sitting there in the marsh, shotguns in hand, Scalia and Cheney reminisced about their collaboration many years earlier when as young men in government they had tried to shoot down the dreaded Freedom of Information Act that kept them looking over their shoulders (Congress, by the way, overrode President Ford's veto.) They have much to fear from the Freedom of Information Act. Just a few days ago, FOIA was used to force the Department of Justice to make available legal documents related to Supreme Court nominee Judge Alito's record. The department reluctantly complied but under very restricted circumstances. The records were made available on one day, for three hours, from 3 to 6 pm, for reporters only. No citizen or advocacy groups were permitted access. There were 470 pages to review. The blogspot Mpetrelis reckons this meant a reporter had about 34 seconds to quickly read each page and figure out if the information was newsworthy or worth pursuing further. "Not a lot of time to carefully examine documents from our next Supreme Court justice." It's no surprise that the White House doesn't want reporters roaming the halls of justice. The Washington Post reports that two years ago six Justice Department attorneys and two analysts wrote a memo stating unequivocally that the Texas Congressional redistricting plan concocted by Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act. Those career professional civil servants were overruled by senior officials, Bush's political appointees, who went ahead and approved the plan anyway. We're only finding this out now because someone leaked the memo. According to the Post, the document was kept under tight wraps and "lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule." Why? Because it is a devastating account of how DeLay allegedly helped launder corporate money to elect a Texas Legislature that then shuffled congressional districts to add five new Republican members of the House, nailing down control of Congress for the radical right and their corporate pals. They couldn't get away with all of this if the press was at the top of their game. Never has the need for an independent media been greater. People are frightened, their skepticism of power, their respect for checks and balances—eclipsed by their desire for security. Writing in The New York Times, Michael Ignatieff has reminded us that democracy's dark secret is that the fight against terror has to be waged in secret, by men and women who defend us with a bodyguard of lies and armory of deadly weapons. Because this is democracy's dark secret, Ignatieff continues, it can also be democracy's dark nemesis. We need to know more about what's being done in our name; even if what we learn is hard, the painful truth is better than lies and illusions. The news photographer in Tom Stoppard's play Night and Day, sums its up: "People do terrible things to each other, but it's worse in the places where everybody is kept in the dark." Yet the press is hobbled today—hobbled by the vicissitudes of Wall Street investors who demand greater and greater profit margins at the expense of more investment in reporting (look at what's going on with Knight-Ridder.) Layoffs are hitting papers all across the country. Just last week, the Long Island daily Newsday , of which I was once publisher, cut 72 jobs and eliminated 40 vacancies— that's in addition to 59 newsroom jobs eliminated the previous month. There are fewer editors and reporters with less time, resources and freedom to burn shoe leather and midnight oil, make endless phone calls, and knock on doors in pursuit of the unreported story. The press is also hobbled by the intimidation from ideological bullies in the propaganda wing of the Republican Party who hector, demonize, and lie about journalists who ask hard questions of this regime. Hobbled, too, by what Ken Silverstein, the Los Angeles Times investigative reporter, calls "spurious balance," kowtowing to those with the loudest voice or the most august title who demand that when it comes to reporting, lies must be treated as the equivalent of truth; that covering the news, including the official press release, has greater priority than uncovering the news. Consider a parable from the past, from the early seventh century, when an Irish warrior named Congal went nearly blind after he was attacked by a swarm of bees. When he became king he changed Irish law to make bee attacks criminal. Thereafter he was known as Congal Caech which means "Congal the Squinting" or "Congal the Half-Blind." If this administration has its way, that description will apply to the press. Which brings me to a parable for our day. Once upon a time—four years ago to be exact—PBS asked me to create a new weekly broadcast of news, analysis, and interviews. They wanted it based outside the beltway and to be like nothing else on the air: report stories no one else was covering, conduct a conversation you couldn't hear anywhere else. That we did. We offered our viewers a choice, not an echo. In our mandate, we reached back to the words of Lord Byron that once graced the masthead of many small town newspapers: "Without, or with, offence to friends or foes," he said, "I sketch your world exactly as it goes." We did it with a team of professional journalists recruited from the best in the business: our own NOW staff; public radio's Daniel Zwerdling, Rick Karr and Deborah Amos; Network veterans Brian Ross, Michele Martin, and Sylvia Chase; Washington's Sherry Jones; The Center for Investigative Reporting's Mark Shapiro; Frontline's Lowell Bergman; Newsweek's Joe Contreras. We collaborated on major investigations with U.S. News and World Report, NPR, and The New York Times. We reported real stories and talked with real people about real problems. We told how faraway decision-making affected their lives. We reported on political influence that led to mountaintop removal mining and how the government was colluding with industry to cover up the effect of mercury in fish on pregnant women. We described what life was like for homeless veterans and child migrants working in the fields. We exposed Wall Street shenanigans and tracked the Washington revolving door. We reported how Congress had defeated efforts to enact safeguards that would mitigate a scandal like Enron, and how those efforts were shot down by some of the same politicians who were then charged with investigating the scandal. We investigated the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Steven Griles, a full 18 months before he resigned over conflicts of interest involving the oil and mining industries for which he had been a lobbyist on the other side of that revolving door. We reported on those secret meetings held by Cheney with his industry pals and attempted to find out who was in the room and what was discussed. We reported how ExxonMobil had influenced the White House to replace a scientist who believes global warming is real. We won an Emmy for the hour-long profile of Chuck Spinney, the Pentagon whistleblower who worked from within to expose graft and waste in defense spending. And the blog, Dailykos.com, speculated that it was our interview with Ambassador Joe Wilson, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq and months before Robert Novak outed Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, that first outraged the administration. "An honor I dreamed not of…" None of this escaped the attention of the Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, a buddy of Karl Rove and the designated driver for the administration's partisan agenda for public broadcasting. Tomlinson set out, secretly, to discredit our broadcast. He accused us of being unfair and unbalanced, but that wouldn't wash. We did talk with liberal voices like Howard Zinn, Susan Sontag, Sister Joan Chittester, Isabel Allende, Thomas Frank and Arundhati Roy. But we also spoke with right-wingers like Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Cal Thomas, Frank Luntz, Richard Viguerie, Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and then his successor, Paul Gigot. What got Tomlinson's goat was our reporting. After all, we kept after his political pals for keeping secrets, and over and again we reported on how the big media conglomerates were in cahoots with official Washington, scheming for permission to get bigger and bigger. The mainstream media wouldn't touch this topic. Murdoch, Time Warner, Viacom, GE/NBC, Disney/ABC, Clear Channel, Sinclair—all stood to gain if their lobbying succeeded. Barry Diller appeared on our broadcast and described the relationship between the big news media and Washington as an "oligarchy." Sure enough, except for NOW with Bill Moyers, the broadcast media were silent about how they were lobbying for more and more power over what Americans see, read, and hear. It was left to one little broadcast, relegated to the black hole of Friday night, to shine the light on one of the most important stories of the decade. What finally sent Tomlinson over the edge and off to the ramparts, however, was a documentary we did about the people of Tamaqua, a small town in Pennsylvania. The Morgan Knitting Mill there had just laid off more than a third of its workforce— the last of 25 textile mills that sustained the townspeople after the demise of the coal industry. The jobs were going to Honduras and China. Our report told how free trade agreements like NAFTA had encouraged companies to lay off American workers, produce goods more cheaply abroad and then import the goods back here. We showed how the global economy contributes to the growing inequality in America, with the gap between the rich and poor doubling in the last three decades until it is now wider than in the days of the Great Depression. Those are the facts—"reality-based" reporting— that caused Tomlinson to tell The Washington Post that what he saw was "liberal advocacy journalism." Well, if reporting what happens to ordinary people because of events beyond their control, and the indifference of government to their fate, is liberalism, I plead guilty. Tomlinson was now on the warpath. In secret (his preferred modus operandi ) he hired an acquaintance out in Indianapolis named Fred Mann to monitor the content of our show. What qualified Fred Mann for the job has been hard to learn. His most recent position was as director of the Job Bank and alumni services at the National Journalism Center in Herndon, Virginia, an organization that is administered by the Young America's Foundation, which is, in turn, affiliated with the rightwing Young Americans for Freedom. The foundation describes itself as "the principle outreach organization for the conservative movement" and has received funding from ExxonMobil and Phillip Morris, among others. But the trail to Mann went cold there. Several journalists have tried telephoning or emailing him. I tried four times just this week to reach him. One enterprising young reporter even left notes for him at an Indianapolis Hallmark Store where Mann frequently faxed data to Tomlinson. No luck. I guess we'll have to wait for Robert Novak to out him. Fred Mann never got around to writing his full report, but when members of Congress pressed Tomlinson to show them the notes from Mann, it turns out that he had divided NOW's guests into categories, with headings like, "Anti-Bush," "Anti-business," and "Anti-Tom DeLay." He characterized Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who departed from Republican orthodoxy to question the Iraq war, as "liberal," which must have come as a quite a shock to the senator. During all this I sought several times to meet with Tomlinson and the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I wanted to ask them first-hand what was going on and to discuss the importance of public broadcasting's independence. They refused. I invited Tomlinson more than once to go on the air with me, with a moderator and format of his choosing, to discuss our views on the role of public broadcasting. He refused. But all the while he was crudely pressuring the President of PBS, Pat Mitchell, to counter NOW. And he himself was in direct contact with Paul Gigot, the rightwing editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, to bring to PBS a show that Gigot had hosted on the cable business network CNBC until it was cancelled for lack of an audience. So the Journal Editorial Report came to PBS, with the Wall Street Journal, that fierce defender of the free market, accepting over $4 million of taxpayer dollars courtesy of Ken Tomlinson. The emails between Tomlinson and Gigot during this time reveal two ideological soul mates scheming to make sure "our side," as they described themselves, gets "an absolute duplication of what Moyers is doing." But as the record will show, Gigot's show was nowhere near what NOW with Bill Moyers was doing. We were digging, investigating, and reporting; they were opining. We were offering a wide range of opinions and views; they were talking to each other. The participants on Gigot's broadcast were his own staff members at the newspaper whose editorial pages are the Pravda of American journalism, where the Right speaks only to the Right. To be blunt about it, we had more diversity of opinion on a single broadcast than Gigot had all year or than he has ever tolerated on his own editorial pages. Reporting? You have to be kidding. In their private exchange of emails Tomlinson informs Gigot that he doesn't really need to do field reporting. Gigot agrees, and goes on to say that he finds such reporting not only a waste of time and money, but "boring" [I'm not making this up: the editor of the editorial page of a great American newspaper finds field reporting "boring."] So it is that ideologues like Gigot can hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. I had always thought Gigot an honorable, if ideological fellow. The emails confirm that he is for certain an ideologue—and a partisan. The saddest part of this story, personally, is that on my own initiative—with no prompting from anyone—I had Gigot on my broadcast three times and had asked him to become a regular presence through the elections. I even solicited Pat Mitchell, the PBS President, to urge him to accept my invitation. I had no idea that at this very same time he was secretly negotiating with Tomlinson for his own show. He never bothered to tell me. After reading the emails, I realized this was deceitful on his part. Even as I was asking him in good faith to join me on the broadcast, Gigot was back-channeling with Tomlinson on how they could complete their deal and was advising Tomlinson on "the line" that the CPB chairman should follow. Of the many disclosures in the email exchange between the two, this is the most intriguing. On August 13, 2004, Tomlinson wrote Gigot: "Protect me on this. I am breaking my word by forwarding this Mintz/Moyers stuff—but it's too rich for you not to see. Please, please don't show it to anyone. But keep in mind as we have fun with this. Cheers-KT." What's he talking about? Mintz is Morton Mintz, the octogenarian (now retired) and much honored investigative reporter for the Washington Post. I know nothing about his politics; during his long career he broke exposes of both Democrats and Republicans. That August he and I were emailing about the possibility of an appearance by him on my broadcast, and two months later, just prior to the first Bush-Kerry debate, I did interview him about the questions he would put to both candidates if he were an interlocutor who wanted to break through the polite protocol of the staged event in the hope of getting the politicians to touch reality. Neither Mintz nor I can recall the exact subject of our email exchanges that August, long before the debate. Tomlinson somehow gained access to our correspondence—Mintz speculates that he found someone who hacked into our emails—and promised his source that he wouldn't share it with anyone else. Nonetheless, "breaking my word" and begging Gigot to "protect me on this," he forwarded it to his co-conspirator. In a sane world, both men would be drummed out of town for such behavior. Gigot has now taken his show to FOX News, where such tactics will find a compatible home among like-minded partisans. "Our side" turns out to be the great Republican noise machine. A couple of days after that announcement, the Wall Street Journal published a thoroughly disingenuous editorial, obviously written by Gigot, defending Kenneth Tomlinson and their own involvement with him, while taking potshots at the Inspector General of CPB who had investigated the whole mess at the request of members of Congress. The editorial compared him to Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau. But in a final triumph of reporting and evidence over ideology and spin, the Inspector found that Tomlinson had committed multiple transgressions: he broke the law, violated the corporation's guidelines for contracting, meddled in program decisions, injected politics into hiring procedures, and admonished CPB executive staff "not to interfere with his deal" with Gigot. The emails show Tomlinson bragging to Karl Rove, who played an important role in his appointment as chairman, about his success in "shaking things up" at CPB. They also confirm that he had consulted the White House about recruiting loyalist Republicans to serve as his confederates in an organization that had been created in 1967 to prevent just such partisan meddling in public broadcasting. (Thanks to Tomlinson and his White House allies, the new President of CPB is the former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. She arrives under a cloud that only her actions can dispel. We shall see.) Curiously, Gigot's Wall Street Journal editorial conveniently failed to mention that the emails between himself and Tomlinson indicate Tomlinson perjured himself under oath, before Congress, when he said he had nothing to do with the agreement that landed Gigot at PBS. Fact is, they worked hand-in-glove. As I just mentioned, Tomlinson told his own staff not to interfere with "his deal" with Gigot. There's even an email in which Tomlinson says to Gigot, after they have been plotting on how to bring the proposed Gigot show to fruition, "Let's stay in close touch." Obviously, lying by an ally doesn't offend Gigot, who is otherwise known as a scourge of moral transgressions by Democrats, liberals, and other pagans. As all this was becoming public, Tomlinson was forced to resign from the CPB board. He is now under investigation by the State Department for irregularities in his other job as Chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the agency that oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other international broadcasting sponsored by the United States. As I say, great secrecy breeds great corruption. I have shared this sordid little story with you because it is a cautionary tale about the regime in power. If they were so determined to go with all guns blazing at a single broadcast of public television that is simply doing the job journalism is supposed to do—setting the record straight—you can imagine the pressure that has been applied to mainstream media. And you can understand what's at stake when journalism gets the message and pulls its punches. We saw it once again when Ahmed Chalabi was in town. This is the man who played a key and sinister role in fostering both media and intelligence reports that misled the American people about weapons of mass destruction. Although still under investigation by the FBI, Chalabi has maneuvered himself into the position of Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq. He came to Washington recently to schmooze with the President and to meet with the armchair warriors of the neoconservative crowd who had helped him spin the case for going to war. The old Houdini was back, rolling the beltway press who treated him with deference that might have been accorded George Washington. Watching him knock one soft pitch after another over the wall, I was reminded that the greatest moments in the history of the press have come not when journalists made common cause with power but when they stood fearlessly independent of it. This was not one of them. In his recent book, The Gospel According to America, David Dark reminds us again of a lesson we seem always to be forgetting, that "as learners of freedom, we might come to understand that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." He might well have been directly addressing the press when he wrote, "Keeping one's head safe for democracy (or avoiding the worship of false gods) will require a diligent questioning of any and all tribal storytellers. In an age of information technology, we will have to look especially hard at the forces that shape discourse and the various high-powered attempts, new every morning, to invent public reality." So be it. Bill Moyers

19 Agent Jones says McCain is a pod human worth respecting. Having survived Viet-Com beatings years ago in the matrix, he recently taught a lesson to Bush and gave him a round public spanking right in the cosy confines of Bush's pod.

1 Agent Brown says most of America hasn't pitched in enough, start the draft now and join the battle for Iraqi Freedom!

2 No Draft! In fact, lets end finally again Registration! No forced conscription!

3 The large percentage of idiots and cowards you get in the draft far outweighs any advantage in numbers.

4 Our veterans of Vietnam and Korea and WWII appreciate your views joe

5 Draftees have only ever fought at all because they knew they'd be stood up against a wall and shot, or spend half their lives in prison if they didn't serve. Army studies in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam show that only about 10% of any unit fought during any battle, excepting notably the all-volunteer units such as the Airborne, etc.. And old WW2 vet once told me that he, as a squad leader, had personally executed a coward, which is as it should be. You fight with your brothers, or you die. This isn't to say that some draftees didn't fight, quite the contrary, many did, and earned honors, but most didn't want to be there, and just tried not to get killed. Any day, any battle, I'll take one man who wants to be there, rather than a hundred who don't. If someone doesn't have the balls to volunteer, I don't want them to burden me with their presence.

6 "veterans of Vietnam, Korea & WW2 ..." ????? Do you realise John that volunteers made of a big portion (and the majority in some cases) in those conflicts? Do you know that draftees were disportionally (significantly) represented in disciplinary actions, AWOLS, desertions, crimes etc. There is a myth surrounding draftees that came out of WW2 - most were OK both others .... People like Studs Turkel helped build it - and glossed over the problems.

7 I can't believe Agent Smith started a thread that people are taking seriously.

8 Oh God! Your right!

9 John Ryan, Why do you want to be a troll? You know damn well that things have changed since WWII. And yes, just like my father volunteered to go to Korea, MOST WWII soldiers volunteered to go to that war. You can't be as stupid as you seem. I personally think you are a liberal troll. My observation, but I think several others here have observed the same thing.

10 Yes, JJ, I think he is as stupid as he seems.

11 I'm sure you guys have seen on the news channels that this election is very different from the last two, the sunnis are participating, voting stations are being open for extra time, less blood and mayhem, even some insurgents are encouraging people to vote, some of them are even protecting polling booths. It seems George Bush's 'stay the course' is paying off big time, even his opponents are admitting it. watch the death throes of alqaeda. Thanks to the US Soldiers, Americans and their 'spine of tempered steel' president.

12 It was the draftees who were most at risk in Vietnam. They were the ones that bore the brunt of the fighting. Most people who volunteered for 3 years were not placed in infantry units. You are entitled to your own opinion about their performance while there. "Troll" perhaps. cheerleader no. Did my designation troll come from the post about how much money was lost on the movie The Alamo ? I apologize, I know people are often emotional about historic icons. About 9 million men served in the Armed Forces 1965-72 about 1/3 went to Vietnam. Of those that went only about 12% were combat veterans. 10% Fighting 90% in the rear with the beer. Sometimes it seems from war stories that the ratio should be reversed. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004217.asp

13 1965? I know the routine and motive for choice of date. Its 1961 and no wishful thinking or faded memory is ever going to change that. Combat units had a very high percentage of volunteers. Its a cultural thing you probably can't understand or comprehend that. Sorry, draftees were not the most at risk or bore the brunt of the fighting - but that is part of the mythology isn't it - along with things like higher percentage of minorities and poor. There are others some here are familiar with. Where have I heard this all before? Oh, force structure and distribution - best to leave what you don't understand alone. I'm opposed to a draft - so have others here stated - but you? - what? You want it both ways don't you - like Rangel huh - idolize it on one hand so you can attack it and the war on the other. Sorry John - no luck today.

14 Hey John, maybe you should tell my neigbor, the disabled veteran who volunteered for the Army, the Infantry, and Vietnam that he didn't serve. Moron.

15 maxie Go to rusty's haiko thread and pick up your present before Goggle deep six's it!

16 IM & Joe: At last something we disagree on. The value of the draft. We are in totally opposite corners. Do all military members want to fight? Or did they join for a job? Think back to your highschool and college days. Did the best of your class join the military? I worked for the military for many years. My wife retired last July after thirty years as a military officer. My son is a Capt. in the Marine Corps. I'm a ex Marine, both enlisted and Officer. My father was killed in 1943 as a pilot in the Army Air Corps. I know the military. I know them during peace time and war time. To me they are (1) Better during wartime. The Officers tend to spend more time on other things besides getting promoted. (2) In serious conflict, our standing military allways gets its ass kicked until the draft kicks in. (Revolutionary war, war of 1812, WW1, WW2, Korea. Think about Pearl Harbour, Kasserine Pass, etc: Take a walk around Keesler Air Force Base as I did the other day. Unmarried black women with 3 out of wedlock kids, dressed in boots and fatigues do not make for a winner. The draft gets mainstream America into the fray. And mainstream America cannot be beat in anything it gets serious about. Besides, I take particular delite in seeing a liberal democrat shipping out with full pack. They get to do their part to ensure that the wonderful lifestyle we have here continues on. If we was to lose, what would they have to complain about. They become better citizens after getting up close and comfortable with what it takes keep it going.

17 Greyrooster has a point. I'm a grandmother who has not served, but my family comes from a long line of men who have - Army, Air Force (my dad) and Marines - all the way back to the Revolutionary War. Some enlisted and others were drafted, yet, they all feel they learned a profound respect for what our country stands for, which they may not have without knowing what it is to serve proudly with their brothers. Hell, even my husband served willingly, not drafted, and he's an Italian citizen. He is very proud of his service and loves America above his own Italy. That's why it absolutely disgusts me to see and hear natural American citizens denigrate our country.

18 Our first draft came a couple of years into the Civil War in the North. Prior to that, we still had significant force superiority but were getting the crap kicked out of us by the South. The response of some was forced conscription for even more manpower in what appeared to be a losing effort. The true reality however was leadership in the field - when McClellan and his cronies were dumped everything changed - and the draft had little to do with it. The draft was haphazardly enforced and had numerous "problems". Much of what people know about the draft comes from Vietnam and the myths surrounding WW2. you would be surprised at the reality of it.

19 Wow, what a commotion! What I intended to convey was this. Right now, in this war, we do not need the draft, and if we had it, I believe a large number, but not neccessarity the majority of people drafted, would not have the motivation we need in this particular conflict. I believe we would capture a large number of drug users and unmotivated individuals in a draft. I also believe that the draft itself would cause a large number of people to turn against the war effort. And that's exactly the reason people like John Ryan and others of his ilk would like to see a draft. In the case of a WWII type conflict there is no question the draft would be neccessary. I hope I clarified my original statement, but frankly, I didn't think that would be neccessary here, but I did forget about John Ryan. He is easy to forget.

20 Guess Mr Smith won by successfully steering everyone of topic. Point Smith.

21 I don't disagree with your Rooster, I just happen to see things differently. I think liberals should be the first to be drafted and sent to the front as cannon fodder, which is exactly what they're good for, but if faced with the choice of ten volunteers or a hundred draftees, I know who I would choose to stand with me. Any man that has to be coerced into fighting is a gutless wretch in the first place.

22 Agent Smith agrees with Greyrooster that our military needs to stop trying to fight this war with one hand tied around our balls. The draft will pump up the ranks with hundreds of thousands of red-blooded American troops are going to go over there to find those IED planting sons-of-bitches and clean those fucker terrorists' clocks once and for all. It is payback time.

1 halo ça va bien moi ça va bizo bye je t'aime

2 I don't believe that a majority of Americans believe the 'purpose' of incarceration is for the rehabilitation of criminals. It may be the majority of liberal Americans' belief, but prior to the mid-20th century, the purpose of incarceration was to remove the criminal from normal society. I am for the death penalty for one reason: a dead murderer, rapist or child molester can not re-offend.

3 Gotta love how Libs are against the death penalty, but are for abortion.

4 Libs, how bout instead you rehabilitate some of those unborn babies you like to kill so much.

5 I think deterrence of third parties is a much more important function of our prison system than rehabilitation or deterrence of the actual criminal being sentenced. Sending a crook away to prison for their crimes probably won't change that person -- most likely he/she will spend their time in jail thinking about how they got caught and figuring out to get away with their crimes when released -- but it has a much greater chance of convincing those who have yet to commit certain crimes from doing so. In that regard, I really don't know how effective capital punishment (as opposed to life without possibility of parole) really is, and that is part of the reason I am conflicted about capital punishment.

6 The retributive theory of justice trumps the rehabilitative or deterrent. We could keep offenders in jail indeterminately until they were cured or to ensure that they don't reoffend and serve as an example to other potential offenders...but we don't. Why? 'Cause the punishment, say twenty years or until 'cured' or chopping off a hand to deter the offender and others would be beyond the 'just desserts' for shoplifting, no matter how incurable the shoplifter was or how often he offended. However, retribution (or the theory of 'just desserts') doesn't only limit penalties, it also helps set them. And it supports the death penalty in cases that warrant it. One additional thought: the punishment imposed is a measure of the seriousness of the crime. Lesser punishments devalue life by making the price of murder less dear.

7 The death penalty has an effective rate of 100%. 100% of those put to death have never committed another crime.

8 I know Tookie! And Tookie says .... ....

9 Tookie says you commit murder, you die.

10 The rehabilitation aspect of prison depends on the types of crime we are talking about. Incredibly important for smaller crimes, useful in drug related offenses, marginal in violent crime (more important in cases of manslaughter than murder). As far as the death penalty goes, I for one think it is a hold over from a time when revenge/retribution were often mistaken for justice. Sure it's constitutional, so long as there is due process, but as a matter of policy, I find it's practice, um, questionable.

11 The US process is too long and drawn out, giving rise to liberal protest. I admire the US but think that lawyers etc get in the way of swift justice. Having said that...at least you have the death penalty. There is no point in keeping certain subhumans alive at the expense of the state......that reminds me, where's Agent Smith?

12 I am a liberal who is for the death penalty (we actually don't use it enough), will you accept me on this site?

13 J-man, so long as you try to make semi-intelligent comments that we can amuse ourselves shooting down ;-)

14 Hell, I didn't know you had to ask to be on here. I thought people just blurted out stuff and waited to see what happened. The liberals on this site make it fun (most of the time), as opposing views spark healthy debate....even though the right is always right.

15 I think Jester has the general idea there.

16 I have no problem with the death penalty applied to actual criminals who have killed and deserve it. I have a big problem with the death penalty applied to people who turn out to be entirely innocent.

17 IO makes a good point. I don't have a problem with the death penalty in the abstract, but people can make a legitimate argument against it as it's applied. And no, I don't consider objections to it based on "race" to be legitimate. Poverty, yes. Race, no.

18 No execution system is perfect, you're bound to knock off an "innocent" or 2 while killing the worst members of society. You just have to accept it and hope you are not one of them.

19 Execute only those caught red-handed. Better to err on the side of caution. But what crimes deserve the death penaly? I say limit it to murder.

20 And all this time I thought the American justice system was designed to prevent the punishment of the innocent. Boy, was I wrong!

21 IO, then logically you're against the entire penal system as well, because I'm willing to bet there's more innocent people rotting in jail than dying in the gas chamber.

22 Murderers, rapists, and child molesters should all be put to death.

23 I am going to go out on a limb and state that the judicial system bends over backwards in an attempt to keep innocents from succumbing to the death penalty. I wonder, what is the probability of an innocent being put to death? What is the probability that a violent offender will commit another violent crime? Of course, in the effort to compute these probabilities, one would have to take into account the 15+ years the accussed is behind bars. As regard to what to limit the death penalty to, I agree with J-Man, as I posted early, with one caveat: violent rape as oppossed to the "I-got-drunk-and-realized-I-slept-with-the-dork-from-physics101-better-say-it-was-date-rape" rape.

24 There's plenty of innocent people in prison, and there's plenty more who just SAY they're innocent. It's usually easy enough to tell the difference, once you dig deep enough into the case, get some DNA testing done, etc. Two men in Virginia who spent years in prison were exonerated today by DNA evidence, and the governor plans to pardon them. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the organizations which get involved with cases like this are almost always liberal biased. Defending the innocent doesn't seem like it should be a partisan issue. If it were, the military would be full of Democrats.

25 The very moment an individual or a society declines to punish criminals is the moment that individual or society loses its right to survive. The allowance of murderers to live is something that even the most backward of savages will not consider for one minute, yet many among us, we who call ourselves civilized, think that the wrongful taking of the life of an innocent must be excused at all costs, even at the cost of more innocent lives. Liberalism is the belief that it's better to have murderers and rapists of children running free, murdering and raping, than to punish them in any way. All liberals should be killed for the good of humanity, because they are just to stupid to be allowed to further pollute the gene pool.

26 Too stupid. Dammit.

27 Good point IM...it is not just about a deterrent but about keeping everyone else safe. We are quick to eliminate any other threat to human life so what makes a killer different from a deadly virus or rabid dog? I would ask any liberal to imagine having a close loved one murdered and then to honestly ask whether the killer deserves to live.

28 I think it's about sending a message-- that murder is the ultimate crime and merits the ultimate punishment. The punishment says something about the evil of taking innocent life.

29 I am in general favor of the DP and have witnessed an execution. I'll not go into the execution here (in a previous comment I did and if you mosey on over to my blog and dig around a bit you will find the account of it). It is good the conversation is sober for it is a very sober topic. I don't think all murders warrant the DP but some do. Generally those with a long history of crime and murder or those who murder with calculation (e.g. the hitman or insurance scammer) should be strong candidates for the death penalty. The man who kills the guy banging his wife but otherwise has no more than a few speeding tickets in his past should do the time we normally dole out for murder. The problem with saying life means life is that life means life does not always mean life or at least does not mean he will not kill again. Pardons are possible (though I admit serious murderers are never high on any governor's list). Also, the Amnesty Intl crowd is starting to agitate against life sentences (yet another activist groups don't go away after success they just change definitions to keep their mission alive). One last thing what makes it impossible to murder in prison? Nothing.

30 1st degree murder ? 2nd degree murder? Execution puts our country in with a group that I for one would not wish to be included into. The top 5 in numbers of executions over 1999-2003 #1 China 6700 #2 Iran 804 #3 Saudi Arabia 403 #4 USA 385 #5 Dem. Rep. of Congo. The USA kills about 100 a year. How much of a difference does that make to anything. If it stopped would our society fail ?

31 Damn John, you have a way of being dense. Maybe you should rent out your head for nuclear shielding or something. Or maybe it's just the tinfoil.

32 First we pay for their lawlessness. Then some innocent pays with his/her life. Then we pay for his legal expenses. Then we pay for his room and board for the next 50 years. BULLSHIT! Keeping killer criminals alive places an undue burden on the taxpapers, the victims families and the KILLERS families. In fact, keeping them alive for 25 years before executioning them is bullshit. Punishment 25 years after a crime means nothing. Execute them. Quickly. Why should a killer, convicted by a jury of his peers and upheld by the appeals process live 20 years longer than his victims?

33 I'm a very cautious supporter of capital punishment. I believe that the execution of Tookie was correct and just. There are rare cases where it is. But with science progressing at the rate it is, DNA evidence and other forensic evidence, we are less and less apt to err. Now the actual process of the trials is another issue and that, I believe, is where we fail. There are not many, but a few unscrupulous lawyers and judges that omit or permit the wrong evidence which keeps some from getting a truly fair trial. I think that if we hold these people more accountable by not assuming they are beyond reproach, that part of the process will improve too. I understand that the appeals process is supposed to remedy this, but those who commit these "crimes", judges, lawers and such, are rarely reprimanded for subverting the process. I think that's where our real problems lie. Not so much capital punishment itself.

34 John Ryan is concerned about appearances and how it reflects on him personally in the eyes of say ... the French, Europeans etc. Personally, I'm undecided actually - but the reasons are internal to America. I don't give a damn about foreign appearances. John seeks approval overseas - I prefer an internal debate amongts fellow Americans.

35 Yes, hondo, John is a liberal. I believe that is what you are saying.

36 The illogic, to me, is how can you as a liberal support killing the unborn and innocent old folks, but not support killing those who have killed, raped or tortured their fellow humans? Life in prison may not be fun (though I've heard some actually prefer it to life outside) but there's always the chance of pardon or escape, especially with liberal governors and Presidents like Billy boy...

37 John, the difference between us and them is that we execute people for murder, while China, Saudi, and the Congo execute people for showing their ankles, or surfing the wrong websites.

38 First, we need not give a Damn what other countries think of us. They always cry "Help" when their asses need saving! That being said, The DP is problematic. It costs more than it would cost to put two 30 year olds in Max (23/1) for life . . Because of the "Due Process" we have in place. It isn't positive, more than half of the people an Death Rows in this country either didn't do it or haven't received a fair trial. Justice goes to those who can afford it. And the poor on death row is proof that justice is expensive! We have seen by the use of current technology (DNA and other Forensic methods) that quite a few of those on death row were totally innocent of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Overzealous Prosecutors and Lazy Police tend to excerbate the problem so without solid and noncircumstantual proof of the crime, a person shouldn't be condemned to death. On the other side of the coin, with definite proof, there are damned sure, people who should be killed by the state. Tookie was really a pretty good example, although in his own case, he was convicted upon Circumstantual Evidence, for the most part. But his founding of the Crips, in my mind, made him one of the best DP Candidates to come down the road! He helped write the rules a whole bunch of murdering assholes lived by!

39 Good comment large.

40 Agent Smith wonders why you pod-dwellers keep putting criminals in power as your leaders.

41 lets put a end to all those stupid appeals its time to say no more appeals

1 Yes I heard Murtha blabbing this AM about how it's not working. Tell me just what does success look like? Also going on about how the war started. Never do they take into account that things are fluid. Nope they act as if things were very clear and set in stone not moving requiring no anticipation or judgement.

2 I bookmarked that BBC link in a folder I named "Stupidity and Propaganda". There can be no doubt in the mind of any sane person that the MSM, and especially the BBC, is unquestionably loyal to murdering, tyrannical socialist/communist dictators. The media are scum and should be purged.

3 The media will not see much progress in Iraq because it does not further their agenda. They just can't admit that progress is being made. That is why alternative media sources (like this site) are becmoing more and more important each day. Keep up the good work!

4 Here, here!

5 The reason the dhimmicraps don't recognize success is because they've never been on the winning side, starting with the Civil War. I suspect many of them were cheering for the Nazis too.

6 Jose hit the nail on the head.

7 Agent Smith notes Improbulus likes the word "purge" when describing political solutions, just like Saddam, Stalin and other communists did.

1 He's not stupid. "Denis" is how the French spell "Dennis." So he's quite appropriate.

2 Sacré dieu! Je déteste les chameaux sales de la presse gauchiste. Ils sont les putains des terroristes.

3 Agent Brown says that a shackled media leads to more shackled minds.

4 Agent Bill127233 says a stupid media leads to more dead US troops.

5 Smith, you're really getting on my nerves.

6 Neo says "Agent Smith, I put the smack-down on your *ss. Now go back to being a dhimmi beeotch. Want some Arab zibb?"

7 If they knew the rules when they took the assignment, then there's no arguement, no vigorous protest to be made. You break the rules, pack your bags. Smith, back in the real world, everything is shackled in someway. Those shackles are called rules. In journalism it's called ethics.

8 Smith implies he doesn't want the terrorists to be "shackled".

9 >>>"Agent Brown says that a shackled media leads to more shackled minds." ditto a biased media.

10 No problem! Next AP embed out on patrol or covering a story - bends down to tie his shoelaces - "Hey! Were did everybody go?" Don't need to target them (media never did figure it out). Just leave them hangin' in the wind.

11 Agent Smith has shackled himself to the terrorists.

12 Its a long walk back to the Green Zone and the hotels. And taxi-drivers, insurgents and jidhadists don't take American Express.

13 The media and liberals are no less an enemy than the terrorists, and should all be killed. They prove this again every day.

14 The media and liberals are no less an enemy than the terrorists, and should all be killed. They prove this again every day. Nice. Very intelligent and well spoken. Let's kill everyone that doesn't agree with us. /oh wait, that's what we're already doing

15 shorter jonas: terrorists are merely people who don't agree with us.

16 He will of course give you a running headstart jonas - Maxie's a big-hearted guy!

17 shorter jonas: terrorists are merely people who don't agree with us. Sometimes, they agree with us.

18 Brian B! That is glorious!

19 That was beautiful, Brian.

20 I know, it made me cry when I read it, too.

21 Cleanup on aisle 1. That would be my computer screen. Great stuff, Brian B.

22 Hey, I didn't write it, I just linked to it.

23 That was funny shit.

24 Agent Smith shackled to terrorists? The agent bullshiters are terrorists.

25 Oyster: Agree with you on the agent crap. Greg is like a little child. Or should I say is a little child. Totally prideless. He was voted off this blog by overwhelming majority vote. What kind of dork would continue on with his mental midget agent crap? He's a pitiful, lonely, little freak that gets off on paying the normal people back by cheering for the enemy. A Columbine punk without courage.

26 no way Agent Smith is greg.

27 Whatever game Agent Smith plays, he does it with one email address and one personna. Considering the occasional troll infestations of hit, scream, run & hide dickheads - he is in a league of his own. I don't mind him - and sometimes he's occasionally witty in a droll way. Just don't respond to him in depth - because he's not coming at you that way.

28 No, Smith can't be greg. Because once in a great while Smith is right. He occasionally spews out an anti-terrorist statement. Greg would never do that. If it's greg, I'll eat my hat.

29 Who is Greg?

30 Greg is currently (according to him) down in the jungles of South America living out his fantasy ala "Bananas" or "Deliverance" - we're not sure which. Though it could possibly be a sex tour and he was too embarrassed to say. He did say he would be teaching young latin(o&a)s to speak english. Who knows?

31 Agent Smith thought Greg lived in Texas and watched Univision.

32 Ya'll sure? Don't bet on it.

1 17 and 11 I see a problem with that.

2 Duh, the last time I checked rape was a felony crime! The parents and the police should have been contacted. I think Planned Parenthood possibly committed a crime by not reporting this, if in fact it is true.

3 The bim gets raped, tells planned parenthood and all is well. No cops, no press, no charges, nothing. Sounds like planned parenthood is covering up a rape.

4 I blogged on this earlier today. Among my concerns: 1. If this rape went unreported, how many more girls did that twisted little shit rape before he got caught? 2. How loving and responsible has PP really helped this girl and her new boyfriend be if, after several years in an allegedly monogamous relationship, they still need to be regularly tested for HIV and other STD's? 3. This isn't really about helping the girl, this is about PP undermining parents' rights to have any say in what happens to their children.

5 So much for that story. It doesn't exist on the Planned Parenthood site.

6 GOP bloggers also sent me an email about this. Absolutely disgusting behavior at Planned Parenthood.

7 I can't find the source letter at SFPP. It may have been pulled - its my understanding there may be some investigation involved about it - I don't know. It could be true. It could be a hoax - though of a different kind. It's an un-named posting from a past (satisfied - sic) client. Some in the past (ie. reporters and issue supporters) "create" what in their minds (and according to their value scheme) are sympathetic characters. They can go "overboard" easily without realising the actual implications of what they are saying. The point of origin is San Fran - it is easy for me to see some enthusiatic PP supporter doing this thinking that it actually "helps". Wait and see.

8 For you sympathetic lib/lefties out there ... This would not be a right-wing evil Christian hoax ... It appears to be (if it is a hoax) one of your own gone off the deep end ... It is exceptionally well written for a 17 yr old girl who clearly implies a "distrupted" homelife - which typically is not conducive to educational skills.

9 This is what happens when lefties are in charge. Morals and rule of law go out the window. If the story is true, wouldn't that make Planned Parenthood an accessory to the crime, or something, for failure to report it?

10 Mounting evidence that Liberalism is a mental order.

11 Didn't say the girl was pregnant after she was raped. That's an assumption the blogger leapt to. If a rape victim chooses not to reveal the identity of her rapist and doesn't wish to press charges, you can't make her. moreover, it's not the responsibility of the health care provider to do so in her stead. their job is to provide health care. reporting the rape could be a breach of doctor/patient privilege; it could also discourage other girls from coming in for treatment and counseling. also, they may have strongly "encouraged" her to tell her parents, as the blogger suggested. who knows what happened in the conversation? but do you really believe we should mandate what families communicate to each other? where are the small-government conservatives?

12 It's more of that "progressive" thinking where everyone, regardless of age or maturity has the right to make their own decisions. Unfortunately children, especially teenagers by nature are irresponsible and need good parental guidance if they're to become decent people. This is the sort of rubbish that happens when organisations do their best to undermine that natural order, all in the name of individual rights.

13 Sorry - actually in this case (if its real) the healthcare provider would have legal responsibility to report it ( a major felony committed against a child - with or without the child's cooperation). This has never been a small-government conservative issue - It is one of parental rights - attempting to mix the two is snidely disingenuous.

14 PP does a lot of anonymous counseling and testing, we don't know that they knew who the girl was to report it. But more importantly, it doesn't say they didn't notify the police, it says the girl chose not to notify her *parents*. What still hasn't been answered is, why are we trying to mandate familial communication? Encourage strongly, of course--and we don't know if they did or didn't, only that the girl ultimately chose not to tell them. But mandate? And why is it PP's job to tell the parents? I'm in a profession where I'm a mandated reporter and I've called CPS and the cops when I had to, but we don't tell kids what they have to tell their parents.

15 It doesn't say anything! - its an un-named posting from supposedly a 17 yr old girl - questions of validity remain. 3 questions - is she there for being raped or an abortion or both? You wouldn't report felony rape of a child and feel the parents don't have a need to know? Your confusing me.

16 I would have thought the parents would have been notified by the Police if that was the case, do they not normally have to get consent for a Parent, or guardian to interview a minor?

17 Obviously there are a lot of problems with this story--a lot of things left out (for instance, if she had the wherewithal to go to Planned Parenthood by herself after the rape, she may have self-reported to the police as well). Reporting to the police is not at issue, and not even what the blogger commented on--he commented on not telling the parents. And I'm saying no, I wouldn't be required to tell parents if the child didn't want them to know. (Presumably they will figure it out when the police and CPS get involved, however.) And I don't think PP should be required to tell the girl's parents. That's not their job. They can encourage her to tell them, and they should do that as part of mental health counseling unless the family is so dysfunctional that it would result in abuse, but ultimately she chooses whether or not to tell them. Most kids, with encouragement, will tell. Some won't.

18 Are you talking about the alleged rape? You really are confusing me! If the story's true (and I doubt it) PP is mandated by law to report the crime to LEA - LEA notifys the parents and CPS as required in that order. You keep wandering off on a tangent reference parental notification and throw in "dysfunction (?)". If you want to focus on abortion/children/parental notification requirements issues then clearly do so. Your tying to walk a line that makes no sense whatsoever.

19 No one said anything about abortion, including the girl in the story. Obviously I am talking about the alleged rape. PP is mandated to report to the police. They are not mandated to tell the parents. At which point in the process the parents are made aware is not the responsibility of Planned Parenthood. That's not a tangent; that's the crux of this discussion (which is a straw man anyway: a probably fictitious girl says she didn't tell her parents about a rape and suddenly we all pile on "liberals" because PP didn't notify the parents, which is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY). I brought up dysfunction in a very specific context. Responsible health care providers would counsel a minor to tell her parents about a rape UNLESS the family is so dysfunctional that disclosure could lead to abuse at the hands of the family. I fail to see why that is confusing.

20 I am an intelligent man - I picked up immediately from the start that you wanted to approach/use this thread topic as a lead into a liberal/conservative abortion/parental rights issue. The problem however for you (and you do realise it) is that critical aspects of the letter (probably a fraud) completely supercede those points - and take the argument in a completely different direction. You are in effect - "attempting to work with what you got" - and trying to quietly steer it towards somewhere you want to go. That approach rarely ever works and is extremely difficult to pull off. My advice - forget it and wait for your proverbial "pitch".

21 Interesting that you would think that, when I was in fact the first person to point out here that the story said nothing about the girl being pregnant: that was an assumption the blogger made. The notification question is clearly about a rape, not a pregnancy. But I guess we see what we want to see.

22 The story was posted on a planned parenthood site, then pulled. Here's the Google cache of the page that linked to it. Guess they realized that it wasn't a real PR winner for them.

23 PT - Or want what we want to want Bluto - figured that, but doubt if the letter was true to start - suspected an over-eager PP supporter who created a character without thinking it through.

24 By the note's very existence and specifically mentioning Planned Parenthood, the reader is obviously led to believe that an abortion occured. Otherwise, this gal has the stupidest parents on earth or they would have noticed that basketball-sized lump under her shirt. So, assuming no parents are quite that dumb, if we're expected to believe the intent of the story, PP has violated the law either by choosing not to report a rape and/or by performing a surgical procedure on an 11 year old without parental consent. It is my understanding that even in the states with the most liberal consent laws, 11 is usually well-below that threshold. Even if it was consensual sex with her 'boyfriend', most states still consider ANY sex with an underage girl to be statutory rape even if the boyfriend had been 11 also. You should know that, proudtexan, considering that is the law in Texas. I know this to be factual having been on a jury for a statutory rape case in Houston and have learned and forgotten more about statutory rape law than I care to ever remember. Also, PP is a fair target as a liberal organization being that they routinely give money to liberal politicians. They are no less a liberal organization than is NOW. Regardless, this group would "pile on" them even if they were a conservative group. Come by more often and you'll see most in here go after stupidity and inappropriate behavior no matter what the political affiliation. But it's not our fault that most of the stupidity is on the far left. Don't you think it a bit ironic and hypocritical that the far left support PP and yet you can bet your last dollar that they would be in a lawyer's office the next day if they found out it was their 11 year old daughter who was given an abortion without their consent. That's why most liberals are the known as the 'do as I say and not as I do' faction that they are.

25 I'm with Jesusland Carlos.

26 Proud Texan: You made much of something that should be simple. Rape is rape. Rape of an 11 year old is crime and should be. If the liberals in government service disagree with this then fathers, brothers, etc: will take things into their own hands. You can guess the results. A spade is a spade. Call it that.

27 Let's not beat up on the commenters, folks.

28 I am skeptical of the whole story. The link to that site failed to produce the story for me. That being said juveniles will not seek any type of reproductive health care if they do not think it will be kept confidential. Would you as a juvenile gone to a doctor if you knew that he was going to tell your parents ?

29 Hey I just noticed something else in this touching story. Perfect spelling and punctuation. Pretty good for someone who seems to have made a lot of bad choices. So at least we should applaud her for her staying in school !! Doesn't sound like a high school drop out to me. Not perfect, some run on sentences but all in all I would say B+

30 Actually, its an A, but as usual John Ryan - you are later for supper - on both counts.

31 Agent Jones asks, was it a spade named Greyrooster?

32 Nobody is trying to "mandate familial communication". In fact, it's the other way around. The big argument, regardless of whether there is truth to this story, is that there are many, including the 9th Circuit Court, that are trying to "mandate" that parents have no rights to be involved in matters regarding the sex education, sexual behavior, etc. of their children. Let's get that straight right now. So with the current idea that children should not have to include their parents in these decisions because "they may come from dysfuntional families", I say [*coughbullshitcough*]. All a kid has to do is say, "My parents will hit me." What's the criteria for determining a dysfuntional family? Just because the kid said so? Would PP investigate the home to determine whether the kid simply doesn't want to own up or if the parents really are abusive? By investigating, wouldn't the parents be tipped off? And because these children have displayed such bad decision making abilities by engaging in sex so young, who's to say they aren't doing it again by excluding their parents simply because they don't want to get grounded or have their playstations taken away? And what percentage of parents are really so bad that ALL children should come under the same umbrella? Taking away the rights of ALL parents because of a few is criminal and a violation of so many rights I can't even begin to tell you. And that's exactly what they're trying to do. PP (as well as NARAL and others) is a major player in pushing this agenda from financing political candidates, lobbying Congress and pushing the envelope in publications and pamphlets targeted for our children. And for John Ryan and others who aren't paying attention "it's a cached story on the wayback machine". It's been pulled from PP's current pages.

33 I don't know who these anti-abortion people are, but their taped recordings of PP workers aiding and abetting statutory rape are pretty damning. They claim to have called 800 times to PP offices across the country with someone posing as a 13 year old girl in need of an abortion after sex with her 22 year old boy friend. Something like 90% of the time, the PP people commited the crime. You can listen here: http://www.childpredators.com/Tapes.cfm

34 Wow. That was pretty damning.

35 Responsible? No sex until age 14? I doubt both of those statements. The odds of becoming pregnant from rape is 1,000 to 1. The odds are better that you die in an airline crash than getting pregnant from rape. The girl was obvously having sex at age 11, since it takes several times to get pregnant. She's responsible alright. Just NOT accountable!!

36 Where did you learn your facts on sex and pregnancy Gary? From a fish wife that told you if you stood on your head, or did it in a pool you won't get pregnant?

37 "...it takes several times to get pregnant." HAHAHAHAHA!

38 Gary, dude, if you've got a problem with low sperm count, I'm sure there's a pill you can take.

39 That ain't the kind of pill he needs to take, Carlos.

40 Gary: Maybe it takes you several times to get one pregnant. PLANNED PARENTHOOD: A group that says white folks who can afford children shouldn't have them. But muslims dogs and others can have one every year and the tax payers pay for them.

1 Totally agree that a LOT of the problems leading to terrorism and the alienation that breeds it are homegrown. I still think one of the best pieces on this was Fareed Zakaria's article shortly after 9/11. The Politics of Rage http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html This is why I think we should be supporting what is going on in Qatar, where Al Jazeera is. People here will likely call it the "al Qaeda network" etc. But the fact is they are doing more independent journalism than virtually anywhere else in the Arab world. Also Qatar is moving towards a parliamentary system of government. They are not big, but they are strategically important and having an impact. We also have to be clear about what is the problem ... it's Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran is not going to get any better once it joins the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. For an example of Muslim non violence that will surprise. I recommend Badshah Khan. http://www.peacemakersguide.org/peace/Peacemakers/Badshah-Khan.htm He raises an obvious question: How could the same people who were loyal to him turn into Taliban? Again, the answer includes Pakistan.

2 IRAN - Winning the War of Information For those interested in Iran developements and we should all be, make Dr. Zin at Regime Change Iran a daily must read. www.regimechangeiran.com We must counter the Mad Mullahs before they go nuclear. The easiet was to do this is to win the war of information. Dr. Zin's site is widely read by those inside and outside of Iran as a valued source of objective information. The Mullahs are actively blocking sources of alternative info from the West. They know that once they are "outed" for their "big lies" their power to control the people will cease. Please support Dr. Zin's site in anyway you can. Hopefully the Pentagon in it's new realization we must win the war of information in order to win the GWOT will throw a few buck Dr Zin's way instead of trying to re-invent the wheel from the ground up taking several years in the process.

3 Trained by television, computer technology, the Internet and advertising, Islamist terror now gets higher viewer ratings than any football World Cup. Suicide attacks are a great strategy, invincible weapons not seen by surveillance satellites and deployed practically anywhere. Also, extremely cheap. The modern day terrorist is the perfect fanatic, both victim and hero. He combines destruction and self-destruction at the same time as acting out megalomaniac fantasies and self-hate. He can't be fought nor punished, he takes care of that himself. Muslims are receiving the most destruction. Unless major terror is reaped on the free world aside from the US and Israel, it seems to me our only hope is the Arab world wakening up.

4 The head choppers are not the radicals. They are simply carrying out the wishes of Mohammed. Anyone who has read the Qu'ran would know this. The radicals are the moderates. If that makes sense... They are the ones going against the wishes of Mohammed.

5 Very true Ariya...the radicals are the beauty queens who shun the burkha, the women who marry who they want to and the men who enjoy bacon sandwiches. Those who follow allah to the point of death are sheep and fools.

6 The headchoppers are just like our Founding Fathers, I know this because some moonbat told me so and I believe him.

7 That moonbat wouldn't have been Agent Smith or Brown by any chance?

8 Moonbats say our Founding Fathers were terrorists. So I guess they must have been radical.

9 Arabian lands were not extremely open to foreigners in the past and have grudgingly opened doors or the doors were kicked in. Japan was much the same way keeping the door to Japan very tightly closed and then instead of trying to let the rest of the world in in dribs and drabs they flung open the door and adapted. This is the problem that faces the Arabian Peninsula (Lebanon was hamstrung by civil war and Syrian meddling but it seems lebanon was doing very well at one time). Some nations are cracking the door, some are barring their doors, and some are opening. We have yet to see the doors flung wide open willingly. Visit the UAE and it is obvious Arabic culture (especially that of the influential Gulf Arabic) is having problems coming to terms with the rest of the world. Dubai is a cosmopolitan city with oppulent hotels (one with a great rib joint, yes that is right ribs) and Abu Dhabi is not much different than a bedu village just a lot more of it. These are two cities within the same nation. Yes, it may be that in the Holy Qur'ran Mohd urges Muslims not to take friends from Christians, Jews, et al and to wage jihad. But so too does quite a bit of Old Testament scripture command Christians (of which I am one) to do nasty things to particular sets of sinners. The Christian world reformed and flourished as a result. The Islamic world is a state of reform right now but we don't know which group of reformers is going to win out. Right now it appears the Bin Ladenites have the upper hand.

10 Bush is a revolutionary: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

11 Are terrorists radical? Naw, they just blow people us and shoot police officers in the head from behind. Blow up a restaurant full of people. Run airplane into buildings. NOPE nothing radical here.

12 HEY!!! Where the hell is the Cindy Sheehan bitch? Is she drawing welfare yet?

13 Radical is an expression of deviation from the norm, i.e., unstable. The trick is to determine whether the terrorists are radicals, or mainstream. Hint: It's door #1.

14 The "moonbat" who compared "head choppers" to our Founding Fathers was ...... Ronald Reagan. He actually called the contras AND the mujahideen (pre Taliban) the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers" And people act surprised when that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass. On a separate note: Comparing the insular Arabs to Meiji era Japanese is a bit of a stretch. It was Perry's iron steam ships that woke up the shogunate and forced them to reconsider their insularity. Arabs can buy all the military hardware they want. The only reason the Saudis don't have nukes is they don't need them. They have us.

15 Background: Let us not forget exactly "what" these people fought for, okay? While I don't condone headchopping and blowing up innocents, "what" they fight for is light years apart. So that was a bad analogy or comparison to use.

16 Oyster: I don't know who you are referring to with "these people"... Taliban? Contras? Founding Fathers? And what is the "what" they are fighting for and why qualify it with quotations? Finally, the lousy analogy was not mine, it was Reagan's.

17 I like roosters comment. If Islamists want advice on how not to be percieved as a bunch of uncivilized nuts they could. #1 Stop blowing shit up. #2 Stop blowing shit up. #3 Stop blowing shit up. #4 Stop blowing shit up. #5 Stop blowing shit up. #6 Stop blowing shit up. #7 Stop blowing shit up. #8 Stop blowing shit up. #9 Stop blowing shit up. 10 Stop blowing shit up.

18 Background, no, Reagan said that about the Contras in Nicaragua you ignorant moron.

19 "...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers." --President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985 And now you're going to tell me that Contras are the moral equivalent of jihadis. But that's only because you Libs think your're so fucking brilliant and the truth is you're just incredibly stupid.

20 Forget Cindy Sheehan...where's Cindy aka Firstbrokenangel? I miss her clueless, nonsensical questions.

21 Strike TWO for Jesusland Carlos! Reagan considered the anti-Communist rebel groups such as the Contras AND Afghan mujahideen to be freedom fighters and the "moral equivalent of our [America's] founding fathers" fighting against Communism. In contrast, he considered socialist forces and enemies of U.S. geopolitical allies such as the Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Palestinian guerrillas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, AND left-wing guerrillas fighting right-wing military dictatorships in Honduras and El Salvador to be terrorists. You need a reference for that as well?

22 Hey noise, you fucking moron, can't you see that the mujahideen were fighting against our greatest enemy? If you weren't a moron, you'd know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, which is why idiot liberals like you support anti-Americanism and terrorism around the globe. You all need to be taken out and shot, and especially you, for being so stupid despite your apparent intelligence. I hope you live near where the next suicide bomber hits. I really do. You're just too stupid to be allowed to live.

23 You will be interested to know that when Reagan made those statements (1987)... one of the guys he was referring to was Osama bin Laden. Next time you want to trot out that tired line about how the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" remember this: The enemy of my enemy is not my friend if he betrays my values.

24 Improbus (that's a real word in Latin) Max... that would be a more appropriate nick. You want to talk about terrorist attacks? I know people who lost friends and family at the Pentagon. I know people who died and left behind family at the WTC. I know Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost children. I would never wish that kind of pain on anyone. I'm always impressed how the people who feel most obliged to sensationalize death are the ones who have never actually watched the lights go out. The voyeuristic and pornographic quality of such overheated rhetoric offends me. = Nullus curo pro stulti.

25 IM, is a vet. I bet he's seen his fair share, but thanks for playing!

26 Background, Reagan in supporting the mujahedin was pursuing a policy initiated by your fucking hero Jimmy Carter, so take your feverish pontificating about "values" and shove it up yer ass.

27 JC.... nice to see you shift the strike zone after you eat two fast balls down the middle. You were claiming Reagan never said what he said..... Oh...if Carter has done anything to qualify as my hero... it's what he did AFTER leaving office. So we will call that a foul tip .... 0 and 2 baby.

28 Background, I agree, Carter sure was a shitty president. But you Libs are in a huge world of hurt if that's what passes for "fast balls" these days.

29 Background: please stop using 20/20 hindsight and acting like we, or anyone for that matter, knew that OBL would turn out to be who he became later on. No one even knew who he was. He didn't begin to form al Qaeda until the early nineties after the decade long war the Afghans had with Russia was over. We did the right thing helping the Afghans. In my book it's immoral NOT to help. Sometimes it comes back to bite us. They should have prepared for that eventuality, but it was still right to help them. So take your fast balls and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

30 JC.... 0 and 2 and talking trash. That's rich coming from a guy with a hole in his swing who can't even hit meatballs.

31 >>>The enemy of my enemy is not my friend if he betrays my values. background, I would say it's 1-1. Cause you were right on the quote, but your schpeel about "values" was pure hogwash given Reagan was only pursuing Jimmy Carter's policies. And I would say my hit was a homerun vs your single. Now go eat your pudding, homo.

32 So noise, you strike me as the typical liberal; young, but not too young, who has seen about, on average, maybe one or two percent of what I have, are considerably younger, and whose scope of engagement with foreign cultures is limited to your favorite Thai restaurant and some paleostinian students, with whom you go on protest marches down at the school where you study art history or some such useless crap. You consider yourself well-read and quite smart, but I'm afraid that what you read isn't very enlightening, though you do have what seems to be a tenable grasp of Latin, (even so, you still missed the point of my name), which is commendable, but still doesn't get you a prize, and you're not quite as smart as you think you are. Don't feel bad though, no liberal ever is, because you're all wrong on pretty much everything, even when your intentions are above reproach. You see, liberals are unstable, emotional people, given to flights of fancy, and are prone to think that all problems, and people, are very two-dimensional, and so you see the world as rather like a comic book, in which the hero, (yourself, or the murderous scumbag du jour that you adore), is an outcast of an evil, wicked society, and is simply a misunderstood underdog of a good guy. You see the world in black and white, but in your world, black is white, up is down, and good and evil are whatever you decide they are, which is why liberals get so pissy over an executed criminal, yet see nothing wrong with murdering unborn children for the sake of convenience. In conclusion, you are too stupid to live. Please, if you wish future generations well, I implore you, kill yourself now so that you may not infect others with your weapons grade viral stupidity. I don't say this out of hate, but out of compassion. I can't stand the thought that the greatest obstacle to the freedom of the people of the Middle East is not a gang of murderers and thugs, but those who support them unconditionally. Liberals.

33 Oyster. Helping the mujahideen made sense ... to a point. We went way beyond that point and helped build the Taliban. That was the problem. Carter certainly opened the door for aid with his finding, but Reagan went FAR beyond that and enabled all sorts of nonsense both in Afghanistan and Central America. The problem is always compounded by lack of oversight. That's how we wind up in bed with narcotic traffickers and things always go to hell from there. This isn't hindsight. That was contemporary criticism. The problem is we keep repeating this mistake. Here's a perfect example, after we went in and took out the Taliban why did we officially decide that opium eradication wasn't a military problem? Force protection isn't a strategic issue? People act all surprised that opium production has shot up and guess what...so has funding for terrorists. People were pointing that out back in 2002 but we are *starting* to get a handle on the problem now? After breeding OBL we start pumping up Rashid Dostum? We just don't learn. I can't tell if he will be the next Felix Rogriguez or Roberto D'aubison. Look at Iraq and the "Salvador Option"... that isn't just the same program... it's the same guys: Negroponte, Steele, Casteel, Coffman, Goss... I didn't realize we had a statute of limitations on this sort of crap. And another thing about the "enemy of my enemy" fallacy... it doesn't come back to bite us in the ass "sometimes"... I'm having a hard time thinking when anyone has really benefited from that strategy in low intensity or theater conflicts. Proxy fighting is one thing, but let them go hogwild and that inevitably creates tremendous resentment. We pay for that. We aren't uniquely guilty of this. The Soviets got royally screwed playing the same game. What the hell did Cuba get out of Angola? Castro was lucky the US was foolish enough to take in the Mariellitos. If you *really* want to see how bad it can get look at how we kept turning a blind eye to Pakistan. Enabling the ISI and AQ Khan because they were "the enemy of our enemy"... except when they aren't. I don't want you to think I think everything is bad. I think what we are doing with Jordan and Qatar is good. We should do more of that. I think we should have held the Kuwaitis to their promise of democratization after we saved their asses. I think helping the Kurds is potentially a good thing. Terrorism is a real problem and it needs to be confronted. But it is a piratical scourge, not an ideological battle. Iran SUPPORTED our invasion of Afghanistan. We had a real opening there. This administration (Bolton) didn't want to hear about that. Instead, we paint them as part of this "axis of evil" and drive them into the SCO and their lunatic fringe gets all paranoid and puts a zealot like Ahmedinejad in.

34 background, Bill Clinton should have taken Osama Bin Laden into custody when given the opportunity, no? How's that for hindsight. End of discussion.

35 Improbus Max.... I think I got your name just right. I don't see wickedness (even if it is only somewhat) as anything BUT inferior, morally bad and potentially unpatriotic. Maybe you like the oxymoronic quality of the nick... suit yerself. As for the rest of your armchair analysis. It's always bad form to project. You are wrong on most counts. I've spent most of my life outside CONUS. I've seen the damage up close and the aftermath when our attention moves on to some other "hot spot" or "crisis" for the cameras. Talk about simple minded.... I point out Palestinians are a mixed bag and deride Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs as much as Kach, Kahane Chai or Temple Mount Faithful... and you can't even keep the players straight. Nice to be smug ain't it? That way you can always blame others for the havoc. If I was going to paint you in broad strokes, I'd say you were the typical American ... needs a good guy and a bad guy or he can't keep score. That's one of the reasons the meltdown in the Balkans never got much traction here. Same with Angola. American's can't follow a tripartite conflict. About the only thing you got right is .. yeah Thai food is ok...

36 Bill Clinton was pro-Taliban, and let Osama escape in Afghanistan too, as well as Sudan. He incubated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for at least three years, despite the fact that it was harboring Osama bin Laden, was responsible for growing 60 percent of the world's heroin and denied basic human rights to the nation, a U.S. congressman charges. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says he was belittled, stonewalled and ridiculed for three years for asserting the congressional oversight role in the formulation of foreign policy toward Afghanistan during the last term of the Clinton administration. "In 1997, the Taliban overextended themselves," he says. "Thousands of troops were captured in the north. Much of their equipment was destroyed by the Northern Alliance. Nothing prevented the opposition from taking Kabul. The Taliban was more vulnerable than it ever was before." But instead of seizing the opportunity to support the Northern Alliance, Rohrabacher says the Clinton administration imposed a ceasefire and arms embargo that was supposed to apply to both sides. Instead, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia took the opportunity to resupply and rebuild the Taliban army. President Clinton, Rohrabacher maintains, knew about this but withheld information from Congress and the Northern Alliance. Rohrabacher contacted the Central Intelligence Agency and asked officials to talk to his friend. A week went by and nothing happened, he says. He called again. Another week went by with no contact. Rohrabacher got in touch with Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who set up a meeting with the Bin Laden Task Force, a group comprised of members of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency. Rohrabacher met with the task force, which assured him it would get right on the matter. "It took a month before anyone from the task force ever got in touch with my friend," he says. By then, bin Laden had moved. Rohrabacher organized several humanitarian relief efforts on behalf of the Northern Alliance, but, he says, he could never interest the Clinton administration in helping. In fact, he says, the administration threw up roadblocks to his efforts on more than one occasion. During the Clinton administration, the congressman says, Voice of America became known in Afghanistan as the "Voice of the Taliban." "When I tell people that President Clinton supported the Taliban, they go berserk," he said. "But that is the truth." http://www.rense.com/general16/pro.htm

37 BG Noise: I'm not going to spend my every spare moment tearing apart your selection of points to bolster your argument while you ignore those which weaken it. I will say that if you think we ever had an "opening" with the Iranians, you truly are delusional. As a matter of fact, you are suggesting exactly that which you have shown much scorn for in your lengthy dissertations. Fraternization and interfering in unstable nations. Do you really think Ahmadinejad's ascension was due to our policies and has nothing to do with the Euroweenies condescending talks with the Mullahs? Do you also think that Ahmadinejad has said anything that they weren't already thinking or hadn't said in so many words before? He just says it out loud. There's nothing new or different in Iran, except that each day they get closer to the bomb. Something they've been working on since long before we called them any names. Believe me, Ahmadinejad is becoming a huge embarrassment for them. I don't think they put him in there as a result of being called part of the axis. I don't think they knew what they were doing at all when they put him in. They've worked long and hard trying to build this tough and independent image of themselves and he's further marginalizing and alienating them. We see the same thing here - every time Howard Dean opens his stupid mouth, it makes us smile.

38 Yeah yeah sure thing, you're a reg'lar Walter Mitty aintcha noisy? Well, for someone who claims to have been so well-exposed to the world, and all the evil done upon it by those big, mean, nasty Republicans, you still come off as a shithouse intellectual. You see everything through the lens of anti-Americanism and anti-anything a Republican does, which of course makes the excesses of every stupid fucktard dimo-crat from FDR to the curret crop of insignificant traitors pale in comparison. Improbus, indeed. That's almost funny, but not in the way you intended. I'm sorry I wasted the effort, if the only people who are going to go to the trouble to try to figure it out are too stupid to get it. Okay, I'll 'splain it for you: It means roughly the best of the worst, or the other way around if you prefer. I took the concept of yin and yang and put a Latin spin on it to make it sound dramatic, or impressive, or at least different, but not for halfwits to chuckle at because they think they've discovered something clever.

39 Two comments first to JC who noted that after Clinton froze the arms to the Northern Alliance: the Clinton administration imposed a ceasefire and arms embargo that was supposed to apply to both sides. Instead, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia took the opportunity to resupply and rebuild the Taliban army. absolutely correct Which is why I have been saying this "enemy of my enemy" crap ain't working and is only going to screw us. Iraq has always been less of a problem than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. AQ Khan wasn't working out of Bagdhad. Oyster, I am NOT saying that Iran put Ahmadhinejad in because we put them on the axis of evil. I am saying that we had an opening there which we blew because we were so focused on going after Iraq. Iran was the first Muslim nation to endorse our invasion of Afghanistan. The OIC endorsed our invasion of Afghanistan. But instead of focusing on international terrorism (and I distinguish that from the proxy use of terrorists in regional conflicts) we decided to test the Bush Doctrine. Iran wakes up with US boots in almost every country it shares a border with and the president says "You're next".... if they weren't paranoid before that might do it. A rational response is to a) learn the lesson of Pakistan, North Korea and Iraq.... if you don't have a nuke ... get one! b) look for allies. Who better than the SCO ? We are so busy tying ourselves up in knots in Iraq to restore the petrodollar to that country that a bunch of countries most people can't pronounce got together with Russia and China and formed an alliance. Big deal right? Well except for the fact the countries were Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan , Khazakhstan, Tajikistan. And they account for 1/4 of the world's population. And two of them are nuclear powers. And who is on deck asking for observer status? Pakistan, India, Iran and Mongolia. Great. Four nuclear powers , two major oil producers, 1 major gas producer, 1/2 the world's population and a land mass from the Black Sea to the Pacific, from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean. Here's the irony... the reason Pakistan and India came close to nuclear war was the fight over Kashmir, which India wants to defend itself from another invasion by China .... and these guys are all getting together.... why? Because someone scared the crap out of them when he decided we don't need no stinking ABM treaty...and then invaded a country to maintain oil on the dollar standard. And here's the meltdown scenario... while Gulliver ties himself up in knots repeating the Mesopotamian Campaign, Iran shifts to the petroeuro. Russia diversifies as well and China decides to cut back on the dollars. Venezuela having moved all its reserves out of US banks joins in and the US is caught deep in debt, its dollar down 25% and the cost of fuel up 25%. How you like them apples? And OBL is still running around. Think that's just all airy fairy hoo haa... consider this: When was the last time a country kicked out our troops? I mean before Uzbekistan.... Of course rock hard conservatives who think Intelligent Design is appealing because it makes things easier and the folks who believe there is a "War on Christmas" sponsored by WalMart ... it's just easier to believe the real problem is we need to have a Crusade. No wonder Rand Beers quit.

40 Improbus.... you need a better dictionary if you think Improbulus means "worst".... its "somewhat wicked"... and Maximus is "greatest" as in "biggest" or "highest" or "loudest" not "best" You are basically calling yourself "The loudest somewhat wicked [one]" How apropos...well played. I'm impressed... at how feeble you are. Someone should introduce you to a dictionary. How positively Humpty Dumpty of you... I guess you figure it's a dead language who cares right? Sort of like foreign cultures where they don't speaka de eenglish... fuck em. If you are are really going for "Best of the Worst" try "Optimus Pessimus" or "Optimus Malus"... and that yin/yang spin... *chuckle* fuggedaboudit... the cosmological point of that symbol is the dynamic tension of duality that leads to creation.... not the mediocrity of being the best of the worst. Nullus curo pro stultis -- John Smith/Joe/Sanjuro Kuabatake

41 ackground proves that if one has lots of time to waste he can argue about anything or on any side. Every country wrong, every president wrong. Bla, bla, bla. But never, NEVER a solution or suggestion to make things better. Typical democrat for sure.

42 Off subject: Transit workers strike in New York City. This is what happens when the union elects a Democrat black Haitian Immigrant to represent your union. He is so grateful to the nation that gave him a home that he will help cause millions of Americans to lose their income. DEPORT THE PUNK!

43 Gee...seems like a lot of misnomers here....greyrooster would rather act like an ostrich. Pretending there is no problem hmmmm....good thing we don't have a president who does that....oh wait.... I forgot... besides trading Sammy Sosa he really hasn't done anything wrong has he? But hey... if you think everything is peachy good for you, just don't be surprised when you can't afford em.

44 shorter 8ground: I don't just hate America, I hate the whole world.

45 Strike Three for JC My point...which has been pretty damn consistent... is that this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit is a major source of our problems. We need to change that or we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. If you need yet another example of this look at the election victory by Hamas. Do you realize how Hamas got its start? They were supported by cynical Israeli politicians who wanted to create a competing source of power to Arafat. Well... look how well that worked out. I have even been clear about where the trip line is "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend if he violates my values." Yesterday was yet another report of yet another torture facility in the Interior Ministry. That most recent find, like the previous one, was made by American soldiers. Supporting death squads makes a mockery of the service of the vast majority of men and women serving in Iraq. The rest of the world is not going to draw the distinction between "good" American soldiers and "bad" American contractors. I used to be a registered Republican. Reagan cured me of that. However, I would have come back to support McCain but I would never vote for Bush. The difference between Reagan and Bush is Reagan had values, Bush has interests. I didn't agree with a lot of Reagan's values. But he sincerely held them. McCain has values. I don't agree with all of them, but he will listen to reason. You want to follow Bush with unthinking loyalty and act like a battered housewife, that is your decision. But you won't get a lot of sympathy from people like me if you keep enabling the abuse.

46 >>>"I used to be a registered Republican. Reagan cured me of that." Because you were a check pants Republican, otherwise known as a RINO. And when a real conservative showed up, you left in favor of your true spiritual home, the Democrat party. This only served to strengthen the GOP and make it the dominant force it is now because the Reagan revolution actually was a net gain to the party. But now your new party, the Dems, has been hijacked by loons, and everybody in it is being dragged along for the ride. And far from strengthening it, the Howard Dean revolution is a joyride to electoral oblivion. Even some Dems congressmen are having the balls to tell your party loons to shut up. But it's probably too little too late.

47 JC wins the Golden Sombrero Yeah just like Danforth is a RINO... oh wait didn't he officiate at Reagan's funeral? That lockstep mentality is what's carving a hole in the soul of the Republican Party. So much for "big tent" politics. So much for "majority party" status. You got a problem when even George Will says: The president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." - George Will (Oct 4, 2005) George Will chooses his words carefully. He knows that "trust" has been one of Dubya's calling cards. But you want to pretend blind loyalty is the sine qua non of integrity and play the RINO card, go ahead. Just don't act surprised when you find yourself turning to such extremists as Dobson, Roberts and Ahmanson for support. I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I will say it one last time: The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. I realize that talking to you about the importance of values is a waste of time. That conversation assumes you have values. We're done.

48 background, but George Will said that in response to Bush's signing onto some Democrat/Rino legistlation, i.e., signing McCain-Feingold. So are you saying you agree with George Will's view of that Democrat legislation? I doubt it. More likely you're just trying to play both sides against the middle. It's a neat trick, but you can't kid a kidder. It works like this, on the one hand moonbats deride Bush for doing something they don't like, and on the other hand moonbats derides him for NOT doing the very same thing. It means you can't lose, and Bush can't win. That's all you did with George Will's quote. It shows your dishonesty. And what is it with you Liberals with my hispanic ethnicity? In about 5 years hanging with conservatives, it's only Libs who feel compelled to bring up my ethnicity. That wouldn't be racism, would it?

49 Es obvio que no jueqas béisbol.

50 Oye JC, Pienso que su niño interno está demasiado sensible. ¿Qué pasa, tiene una conciencia culpable?

51 Culpable sobre que?

52 Por favor, no insultes mi inteligencia y acto como no sabes de lo que estoy hablando. Estoy hablando de sus malas opciones. Pareces hacer muchos de ellas y después culpar cada uno otro por los resultados. Sabes que es una pregunta válida. No espero que me contestes directamente. Por lo menos INTENTO a ser honesto con se. Probablemente no harás eso, porque pareces adicto a las malas opciones.

53 No, eres tu quien me insulta. E insultas a todos hispanos.

54 Eso es bastante divertido. Usted oye una referencia del béisbol reírse de tu habilidad y confundes eso con el racismo. Éste es un ejemplo perfecto como que culpas cada uno por sus errores. ¡Pienso que pulsaste hacia fuera OTRA VEZ! WOW.... ¡Cinco veces en una fila! Eso tiene que ser un nuevo expediente del mundo. Por lo menos eres constante. Desesperado, pero constante. Ése es todo lo que tengo que decir. No estoy perdiendo más tiempo escuchando tu gimoteos.

55 Not "beisbol", but golden sombreros. Maybe I was being overly sensitive this time, but that happens when Libs can't get over their obsession with my ethnicity. Get the fuck over it already you goddamm race pimps.

56 and ps. guilty about what? Still waiting.

57 JC whined: Maybe I was being overly sensitive this time, but that happens when Libs can't get over their obsession with my ethnicity. And like I said: Éste es un ejemplo perfecto como que culpas cada uno por sus errores. Lemme translate that for you .... "That is a perfect example of how you blame everyone [else] for your mistakes." You get up in my grill calling me a racist because your inner child is wounded by something someone else did to you once upon a time.... and I'm a bleeding heart overly sensitive liberal? Puh....leeze...... now you are just swinging at air. I don't care what language you whine in, I'm done. It hurts my ears.

58 Hey MR. Sensitive... don't forget your prize: http://www.enlexica.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?v=golden%20sombrero&d=spbb&s=Q

59 Still waiting, race pimp.

60 BG Noise. You're all right. The world's all wrong. Why hasn't the Pentagon, the NSA, CIA and every other governmental acronym consulted you? Yeesh. Not one topic has been discussed that your haven't been 100% correct. That's quite a record. You just don't know when to admit you don't have all the answers or that you could ever be wrong. It must be difficult for you to have to discuss such important matters with we who "just don't get it", huh? You consistently ignore some facets of other's arguments to further bolster your standpoint by actually repeating and expounding on them as if they were your own ideas, and yes, you do, in fact, employ 20/20 hindsight regularly. You're not even good at disguising it or applying it correctly. This will be the end of any discussion I'll participate in with you. You can't stand to lose even the most minor point in any argument, so it's senseless.

61 Oyster, I am not always right. I made the mistake of thinking this was a venue for serious discussion. And I am not the only one who the NSA, CIA and White House could have listened to who said that invading Iraq was going to be a huge mistake. They could have listened to this list of left wing, limp wristed, terrorist sympathizing, American hating, surrender monkeys: Gen. Clark (Supreme Allied Commander, NATO) Gen. Hoar (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command) Gen. Schwarzkopf (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command) Gen. Scowcroft (National Security Advisor) Gen. Shalikashvili (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) Gen. Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) Gen. Shelton ( Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) Gen. Jones, (Marine Commandant) Gen. McPeak, (Air Force Chief of Staff) Gen. Zinni, (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command) Face it, if the leader of any self respecting banana republic had made such a huge military miscalculation they would have been overthrown in a military coup. It is testimony to the integrity and respect for their oaths to the Constitution that our military commanders have not sought usurp the legal authority of civilian command. But don't confuse that with being right. == Now you know why the only generals in favor of invading Iraq were General Electric and General Dynamics.

62 Ackup: Seeing the good part of the world is not burying ones head in the sand. I know you know better places to live. Just do us a favor and name one and move there.

63 Ostrich, I like my country fine. I just don't care for the so-called "conservatives" who have taken over and pump up huge deficits,compromise our ability to defend ourselves, squander our natural resources, invade our privacy, meddle with our classrooms, restore dignity and honor to cronyism, and promote welfare for the rich who are so patriotic they move their money off shore. Besides that, everything is peachy.

1 What is this Stuck To the underside Of my desk?

2 Dishwasher broken Wife sees no gift under tree No sex but spoons clean

3 The Jawa archives brings animation to lives With one click they sleep

4 Wow! N' open blog like an open mike! I can work on my standup routine! Damn! Writers block! Oh well ... Guess I can channel with Tookie! Hey Tookie my man, my broooo! Hooowwwww ya doin'! .... You don't say!

5 あなたへの俳句 に、残念、さびている これは最良のiです できる。

6 Great party on the bayou last night. Good food and some of the best looking women I have ever seen. Love them cowgirls. Cooked a hog and had venison steaks and burgers for all. New member brought a couple of hundred fat blue crabs. Great boil. We are going to build a house for an unfortunate family. The boys had everything donated or promised except for the metal roof. The secretary called for a volunteer to supply the material. I didn't here what she say so I asked big Rick. Big Rick said they wanted to know who wanted another drink. So naturally I raised my hand. Apparently Rick doesn't know about pay back. Good time by all. At midnight we toasted the demise of Tookie and called it a night.

7 You just made me hungry! Damn! What's that Tookie? What do you say? Tookie:

8 Hey hondo, ummm... I was just wondering, did you mean to solicit the services of a naughty monkey to ride your turtle while wearing a schoolgirl outfit? Because that's what my best translation gets me. Anyway, if so, I saw a website just for that the other day. No, really.

9 Agent Brown tries Haiku: There once was a man from ole Miss Who jumped out of his truck to piss He tripped over his sheets And went head over feet and learned that ignorance is not bliss

10 There once was a girl named Jill Who used .... Whoops! Wrong blog.

11 That's funny maxie! You got me laughin' up my coffee! Website? I have to see that! Oyster! Get thee to a Nunnery!

12 Maxie Got a Christmas present for you - you'll like it Families that prepare together, survive together http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

13 I love that video. I only wish I had a little girl so I could give her a miniature M1919A1 to play with.

1 Agent Brown says President Jihadidad is a bloody cock-up.

1 Their "outrage" is borne of complete ignorance on this issue. I don't remember their "outrage" at Tookie's four murders. Does anyone remember that? No? These idiots have made him an absolute martyr in their minds. What ridiculousness.

2 Do these Europeans know the names of the victims? The death penalty is society sending a message that murder is the ultimate crime and won't be tolerated. It is a message about the value of innocent life. When societies give murderers a pass, it is sending a message about the value of the innoncent victim's life. Society is saying essentially that the victim has been forgotten in the mix. How many Tookie lovers know the names of the victims?

3 The Europeans shine again. So a cold blooded murderer and crime boss should be accorded the same level of respect and reverence as the people who died under the Nazis for their criticism of the state or merely for their religion? By that thinking the hangings in Nuremburg and post-war Japan were morally wrong? Where's the sympathy for those guys?

4 Man, screw liberal Europe. I say let the 'slamotards take it over, then invade again, kill everyone, and colonize it. I'd like a villa in Tuscany or Provence myself.

5 I think Europe has a great idea. Lets dump our death row inmates on them, they want them so bad. Starting with Austria.

6 Nice post Mike! (and 100% right!!!!) I could use a villa in Italy myself, now that I think about it......

7 support our troops!, thank a soldier at loveasoldier.com, you can send them video greeting cards right from your web camera!

8 Tuscany .... yeah, that's the ticket!

9 AGain, this blog is too divorced from reality to be legit. But anywya, cant you see how the world sees you turds as the terrorists and barbarians? i.e. killing for peace, hating everything out of resentment, not seeing the evil in your own patheitc lives...all you dicksa can say is kill..kill..kill..kill....moral values crowd, wwjd? "ahhh europe is liberal anyways who cares about them",,,do you know how dumb that sounds? i swear this nation has been overtaken by dog patch. hillbillies on parade, dumb and hateful as hell. dont you understand that your "great capitalist economy" requires legitimacy in the eyes of the world? you idiots are bringing the temple down on top of your heads and you dont even see it coming...kill tookie...nuke france...kill sand niggers for peace...morons. your founding fathers would be proud of your facsist sensibilities for sure. ben

10 Insult my red neck white socks and Brue Ribbon beer one more time please.

11 ben, tell me, is there anybody on the planet (besides us evil Republicans) that you aren't willing to bend over for and take it up the ass just to make them like you more? Anybody? We don't do things to make people like us. Get that through you thick appeasing dhimmi skull.

12 It's interesting that you use the name Ben Franklin to spew your verbal faeces. The founding fathers of the United States like other leaders throughout history realised that there comes a time when the talking must be put on hold and force applied. No one in their right mind wishes for it to reach that far, but often it's unavoidable and preparations have to be made. In case you don't get the news under your rock, such a time has come again. Unfortunately it's not a local problem, it's a global one. So if it's your choice to sit around and be over run just so that you don't appear rude, that's your choice, but deal with the consequences. We however, choose not to be. Might I recommend a more suitable name for you to post under: Neville Chamberlain.

13 ben, Just so you know. Money is not the most important thing in my life, whatever you might think. You euro trash can't seem to understand what makes us tick because you have no real experience with freedom. The Socialist/Communist/Nazist statism that was dreamed up in Europe has never taken hold here in the US. To call us fascist is to show your stupidity. Liberty in the guise of Thomas Locke and Patrick Henry are the influences that guide us, not the bankrupt ideals of Marx, or the libertine equality of Voltaire. And hey, ben, get a life and don't take every little thing so seriously. This is a blog where people discuss ideas, current events, and politics. Just so you will know, rhetoric sometimes gets heated and debate is hot. But damn, man, some things are said in jest or to make a point, or sometimes just to shock.

14 Graeme, Have mercy, you eviserated the poor guy. But your point is well taken. Neville Chamberlain......damn, that was good.

15 Here's a comment from a European from another blog: Im from London England, and Iam sadened by what has happened to a man with consience. In my eyes God allowed him to die only to be re-born in a place where forgiveness is the law. He was a sane man who was misguided in his early years but found truth and enlightenment later in life. My heart and prayers go to Stanley Tookie Williams and those who were closest to him. Posted by: TANER AHMET | Dec 14, 2005 1:21:07 PM Probably another victim of the liberal news media over there, like the Sun Newspaper that published an editorial by Jeremy Clarke accusing America of using Helicoptor gunships to kill blacks in the aftermath of Katrina.

16 Ben's a hit-&-run doorbell ringer/poster - it may simply be best to not respond and ignore him. The euros and the left don't really give a damn about Tookie - he's just the vehicle of the moment for their overall cultural agenda/war. The easiest and most effective way to get clemency is to get the families of the victims to come forward in support. There is even an old tradition of reparations or blood money to achieve this. Its never done - the left doesn't put its money where its mouth is - Tookie's just an organic billboard poster to them - and a rather decaying one at that. There are a lot of photos posted of the crowd at the prison - do note the ease in which they show up for one issue - but bring their baggage issues along as well - which in turn overshadows and soon takes center-stage.

17 Dave that email is from a foreigner, hence the name. Most of the British people consider themselves European as much as you would consider yourself grouped in with Canada as a North American. The Sun is a gutter newspaper. I will never be European...Britain is an Island and we've never liked many of the races across the ditch. The EEC is a joke.

18 TERMINATED.

19 Actually Jester, I am a British citizen.

20 Then forgive me dave...you no doubt understand where I'm coming from.

21 Not one European nation asked to have him move there. The piece of shit killed four people. He died to easy. Piss on him and his supporters.

22 Ah don't pick on ben, he can't help it that his mom liked PCP and LSD when she was pregnant.

23 Agent Smith opines on human kindness.. love thy neighbor and kill thy stranger.. Compassionate lethal injection and freedom through electrocution.

24 Hehehe, Jester, I once worked with a guy from Wales UK. I can't remember why it came up but I asked him if was ever to Europe. He said something along the lines of "No, its full of-Europeans"!

25 My father is from Wales...don't ever accuse him of being English. The boundaries within Britain are almost as bad as those across Europe. It is a small continent but very diverse. I still wonder why there is an EEC?.. when old rivalries still fester despite what the Eurocrats think. If you consider the EEC, the poorer countries lose their populations to the wealthier countries. The whole thing is an immigration disaster.

26 send all the Crips to live in France

27 Hehehe again, Jester, I recall sitting in the Horse & Jockey one night fairly early on in my stint in the UAE. The guy next to me drinking a pint had a British accent of some sort and I asked him if he were English. He didn't much appreciate the question, but was good natured about it and instructed me on the difference between the English and his blood. Its the same here. We have regional differences, accents and mannerisms in our nation that are obvious to us but not to others. Cheers

28 You Brits are no different from us Americans. Down here a Yankee is something to be stared at. A New York City Yankee only brings the comment " How can people live like that". Get a rope! "May the Klan protect us". Think the muslims are invading the UK. Count the Yankees moving to the south. And they talk funny too. Worse thing is that the New York City ones are democrats. Yankee go home!

29 When I first went into the Army I'd hang out with my buddies from Montana, Kansas, Ohio, Idaho, Colorado, Maine, Iowa, Arizona, The Dakotas etc.... And we'd all agree ... "Them red-neck southern boys ... they ain't right ... and they talk funny too."

30 Greyrooster...I had a little holiday in TN and TX a few years back so appreciate the north south thing in the US. I miss the biscuits and gravy...southern food rocks.

31 Yeah! I confess! I am a New Yorker who likes grits and a few other choice delicacies - but I don't tak funny! - dey do!

32 Hondo: Choice delicacies of the south? That's the women.

33 Loooooovvvvveeeeee those candied yams! Ya didn't it was the collared greens and pigs knuckles did ya?

34 You idiots really don't get it? You all believe the USA is everything, but it's not. You all still believe the USA is the most free country there is, but it's not!!! In fact Europe is. Thank god there are people in the who aren't so stupid as you guys are. You are a disgrace for your country!!! A European citizen

35 A European citizen: My ass. You dopey muslim loving little prick. I can tell you have allready gone butts up and enjoy it. Hondo: Trouble is many of the southern beauties move to New York for the MONEY: The hotties are born here and then move to New York or Calif. They come back later. But we often miss the prime time. The food, yes the food. The best in the world is in south Mississippi and Cajun Louisiana. And we can prove it. Two million overweight people can't be wrong. Biscuits and gravy grows good quarterbacks. Brent Fayre, Eli Manning, Del Homme and what's that other ones name. You know the one that is 13 and 0. Ha, ha. Eat more grits, cornbread, beans and greens and throw the ball better. Jerry Rice caught a few too.

36 Oh yea! Lived in New York City for a while. Lived on Governor's Island at the end of Wall and Broad Streets. I liked New York City. The people were Okay once they warmed up. Is strange to watch 200 people on a subway and total silence. Weird. Down here everyone would be talking about the weather, fishing, hunting, muslim problem etc: I was the resident engineer of Harlem Hospital for a time. Couldn't hack it. When back to Calif. The people in New York were Okay. That is the ones who could speak English. Never a problem on the subways. Even late at night. All one has to do is go heeled and wear a loose, unbuttoned jacket. The women of New Jersey were different. Must be the polution. They reminded me of YODA.

1 I'm sure Bareback Mounting is a fine movie, but let's be honest-- no kissing kowboys, no Golden Globe awards.

2 What is really funny here is that the fools who produce and star in these movies nominate each other for their awards rather than having someone do the nominations who is not connected with the industry and just might be objective. They convince themselves that they are great, and perhaps in their own eyes they are, but most of us out here in Jesusland look at what they say and do with contempt. That translates into our staying home rather than going to the movies. I rarely even let my children go to the movies now because of the content in even the most benign of films. If Hollyweird wants to destroy itself then all it needs to do is stay the course. The bad attendance will get worse. However, I am planning on seeing a movie this week, and it is the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I look forward to seeing that movie with my 10-year old daughter. She has read the book and is excited about going out on a school night to see a movie. One hopes Hollywood takes notice.

3 Best post -- ever! That certainly did give me a good chuckle

4 I thought it was humorous, too.

5 whether you or I or jesuslandjoe see Brokeback Mountain is of little concen to the CEOs of Hollywood. That film cost only 13 million to make, it will make huge profits. When I googled "hollywood losers" to see what films do lose money I was quite surprised The biggest loser of 2005 was a film called "Stealth" pg13 it lost about 70 million. But the biggest loser of 2004 was another pg 13 that also lost 70 million. This was "The Alamo" come on movie goers where are all you Texans ? Here is a link to where I got the money loser amounts from. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html Yeah IM "It's the Math"

6 >>>""The Alamo" come on movie goers where are all you Texans?" cause we don't like to see our heroes as faggety pussies.

7 John Ryan is correct. Hundreds of thousands of progressive sheeple will flock to see Brokeback Mountain. They will be bored and repulsed, but will rave about it in order to appear sophisticated. Unfortunately for Hollywood, the supply of progressive sheeple is dwindling. And just why the hell is it that liberals have absolutely no sense of humor? Sheesh.

8 I don't know about Texans, but this Floridian will avoid Brokeback, and Brokeback theaters. I don't even want to look like I'm seeing it. And, I don't really give a flip if Hollywood is paying attention to me. If they did, they'd fire themselves.

9 I haven't been to a Hollywood movie in a long time, and I don't buy or rent DVD's. The last one I wanted to see was Finding Nemo (which I did see and love). I'm looking forward to seeing Brokeback Mountain. The story was great and the author has done some great work. Besides, it's a love story, and the actors are all straight (and hunky).

10 Brokeback may make some money but from what I'm hearing, nowhere close to what they think they'll make. Yeah, they'll get the gay audience, the pseudo-intellectuals, but a low turnout from people like 'Show Me' who like the 'straight' and 'hunky' actors. The reality is that they're going to have a hard time getting most straight males to go see a gay cowboy movie. Many straight girls will think of two dudes french-kissing and say 'Ewww.' By the way, Show Me, they may have had real-life girl friends but 'A' list actors don't need to do a movie like this because they don't need the work or money. That makes me think they may have some latent tendencies that they're curious about. I know none of my friends could utter a single line in the movie without cracking up. Just my 2 cents.

11 You guys are straight-up missing the whole thing. It's a chick flick. See, girls who see hunky guy movies, i.e. "teenyboppers", are heavy into bisexual guys these days. A friend of mine who is still single has to screen his girls carefully, because so many girls regularly date bi guys. So, long story short, many modern teenage girls get off on fags. Civilization is doomed.

12 It's like the way the critics raved about "Sideways". Lord that movie sucked. And when Clooney did "Solaris". It sucked too. I'd venture to guess that a lot of people are turned off too at the fools Hollywierdos made of themselves during the last election and contunue to do so with their causes like Tookie. I simply refused to see Jane Fonda's movie "Monster In-Law", or anything she does, and I won't pay one red cent to see Clooney do anything either. Some of these idiots have turned me off completely. This has been a lame summer for movies, but part of the reason they're floundering is their big mouths along with bad movies and lame roles. I'd still cheerfully choke the life out of Pierce Brosnan, that wimpy metro-sexual, for ruining the image I had of James Bond.

13 Hollywood's creativity pumps started sucking air a long time ago. Given the constant barrage of crappy movies, fans, regardless of genre have become put off. That just leaves the homosexual component of soceity. It's not very often they get a mainstream movie where gay characters are not stereotyped as hair stylists. Hence pretty much any movie with gay main characters will do well, plus no critic is supposed to say that it stunk. Fortunately as far as themes go, I think that gay cowboys is pretty much the limit. I don't forsee much of a market for gay D-Day Invasion movies or gay spy movies.

14 brokedick mountain you mean - pass the barf bag, but hey, it's a free country. It wasn't even shown in these parts. If the only thing I had going in life was my sexual preference and the issues accompanying it, I would be better off with a broken dick.

15 LOL, I love the South Park reference.

16 Oyster, I'll back you up on your opinion of Clooney and Brosnan. I'll one up you on critically acclaimed movies that sucked: Napoleon Dynamite. What the heck is that movie supposed to be about?

17 IM, every girl I've talked to may think these guys are 'hunky' but they've all said thought of them, or any other guys, doing team pushups makes them want to gag.

18 Who in there right mind wants to see 2 fags dressed up as Cowboys? It can win all the Golden Globes and Oscar's awards, most real men will Not watch this movie. Now the men who are feminized pussies may rush to see it, but other than NYC, LA and SF nobody gives a shit about it! I hope Hollywood continues their trend, 2006 will make 2005 look like a banner year.

19 I never post, but goesh's comment made me. I couldn't agree more that sexual preference and the related issues should not rule anyone's life, though increasingly I see that happening. I’m sure it’s just the continued “it’s all about me trend.” What I'd like to remind everyone though is that gay men are responsible for themselves, their agenda's are not forced on anyone, and that equality is everyone's right. The same goes for what movies you view. If you don’t like it, don’t go, but don’t try to impose your viewing tastes on everyone. All of America is not anglo-saxon and Christian. All the haters that quote religion remember the least popular and least followed guidelines - love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Personally, and I apologize for being sidetracked, I will see Brokeback Mountain when it comes to my town in a month, not for the hunky actors, but to show support for someone that realizes fags can feel love, and that it’s not all about dick. We may not be your choice of friends or associates, but respect us no less. Will – Cleveland, OH

20 Yea Will, hope you get the hot beef sandwich while watching this smut film! You would probably watch it a 2nd time then!

21 atom, it's not gays that piss me off, it's the folks at Homowood shoving their agenda down our throats and their fake "Golden Globes". How many Globes did Passion of the Christ get? Agenda. As far as gays being loving individuals, that's fine. But that doesn't mean I want to see them doing the nasty. My grandparents love each other too and the thought of them doing it makes me cringe. I'll take a huge pass on this one.

22 The movie business needs to be more like the record business and infect people's computers with spyware. Now that's the way to treat your customers.

23 I could really care less what films Hollywood makes. My point is that they shouldn't complain about the box office. If they want to make money, then they should make movies that appeal to a broader range of people. As for us Texans not going to see the movie The Alamo, well, we like our history before the politically correct hippies butchered it up. John Ryan, I believe you to be a wolf masquerading in sheep's clothing.

24 I say it's a free country and if these idiots want to make gay cowboy movies, it's their right, but I sure as hell am not going to pay to see it, and I'd say a lot of other people won't either.

25 Well, of course Brokeback Mountain isn't going to appeal to the gay-bashing American Taliban. However, the film is going to win the Oscar for Best Picture and do solid box office. It is beyond IDIOTIC to blame a film released in December for falling ticket sales in July. But, the point of this post is to spread hatred of gays instead of engaging in rational discourse.

26 Geek, it may get Oscars, but that's not saying much other than Homowood has an agenda. But solid box office? I highly doubt that.

27 Homowood? I love how homophobes come up with the gayest sounding phrases. /Freud

28 Speaking of Bareback Mountain

29 Geek, We really should define our terms if we're going to sling them around so casually. What exactly is a "homophobe"? I neither hate gay people, nor am I afraid of them. Does your hatred of Rev. Dobson's agenda or the Pope's agenda mean you hate christians? If no, then fuck off.

30 I made my serious comments above, now one for fun. Finally a movie that puts back the poke in cowpoke. I hope this offends as least one person! Will -- Cleveland

31 "If you donÂ’t like it, donÂ’t go, but donÂ’t try to impose your viewing tastes on everyone." In other words, STFU? I personally have no interest in seeing the movie either. Does that mean I'm homophobic too? But let me see here ... making a movie about gay cowboys is a form of free speech and is AOK by you, me and everyone else here for that matter, but someone saying they don't like the theme of the movie should be censured? Is that it? Because that sounds like a double standard to me. If these guys were trying to "impose" their viewing tastes on you or anyone, they'd be doing more than simply exercizing the free speech that's due them as well as you. And that's all there is to it. Throwing out the homophobe label does not mean it's true.

32 Geek, The point of the post was to demostrate that Hollywood should not complain about lagging box office receipts when they make movies that are not likely to appeal to a broad audience. The Brokeback Mountain movie just happens to be a good example of what the post was referring to. In other words, it is unlikely to appeal to the vast majority of people in the US.

33 The problem with Hollywood isn't the desire to make (or award) movies about "gay cowboys eating puddin." While it may be hard for some people here to believe or accept, there is a segment of this country's population that will be interested in seeing it -- maybe even enough to make it a hit. The problem with Hollywood is the tendancy to make Brokeback Mountain type films AT THE EXCLUSION of films that would appeal to more conservative audiences. For instance, a feature length film about Flight 93, told without the kind of anti-American breastbeating Oliver Stone will likely bring to his take on 9/11, would be HUGE. But such a story isn't even in development (aside from a fairly cheaply produced made for TV movie a few weeks back). Hollywood had a similar problem ignoring female audiences for years. I remember when Titanic was being produced, every Hollywood insider (to a man, literally) insisted the movie would flop, now matter how good it was, because it was a "chick flick" and chick flicks don't make $200 million. Eventually, Hollywood learned that a movie ticket purchased by a woman was worth as much as a movie ticket purchased by a man. Eventually, they will have to learn that a movie ticket purchased by a conservative is worth just as much as a movie ticket purchased by those they are more comfortable associating with.

34 Sean P gets the cigar. The Hollywood elites spend too much time pushing an agenda and too little time acting as responsible businesspeople. Major example: right after the Gulf War there was the potential for a huge profit highlighting the heroism and professionalism of American troops in freeing Kuwait. So what did Hollywood give us? Three Kings.

35 Wow! A modern western set in fly-over country about gay cowboys ... who would have thunk it! You all know it's not in general release - sometime in Jan. I believe. There is a reason for this. This is the self-indulgent pat-yourself-on-the-back (or butt) stage for Hollywood. They can heap praise on it (and themselves) without the worry or inconvience of dismal box office sales or worse ... theaters passing or short-time dumping it. It remains to be seen - (or not seen) I'll go out on the limb here - it's going to be a dog - quickly pulled along with its ad budget - and with no real potential with the overseas market. The parties involved will however pat each other on the back (or butt - whatever) - and claim breakthru significance.

36 Bluto - "Three Kings" was a dud (and I found it personally insulting). The "lesson" learned by Hollywood - America was interested in "heroic war movies". They just don't get it - and I just don't care.

37 what's "pudding"? Do I really want to know?

38 NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

39 Bluto - mistake by me - left out word not as in not interested in heroic war movies ... changes the meaning significantly

40 Hondo: Said but true -- and look for history will repeat itself. When Oliver Stone's 9/11 screed tanks -- which it will -- the message Hollywood will wind up "learning" is that American's don't want to see movies about 9/11. Still, I liked 3 Kings. Funny thing is, Clooney is extremely proud of the film and is either too myopic or too stupid to realize it completely contradicts his view of world affairs.

41 Clooney's myopic and superficial which is why he can't see the contradictions. The stereotype portayal of some of the soldiers is what disturbed me. Funny thing - when the Hollywood lib/left play "soldiers" they invariably portray high ranking officers with elite military backgrounds (maybe a fantasy thing). Even the Duke played a Sarge every now and then.

42 What I took from Three Kings was that Hollywood considers soldiers to be amoral thieves at best; a step up, I suppose from the post-Vietnam Hollywood psycho vets, but still divorced from reality. What did I want to see after the Gulf War? Hell, I wanted to find out what Gunny Highway did in the Gulf.

43 Thought gunny retired soon afterwards - blew his pension on Viagra and Marsha Mason? I may fall in their "amoral" category. While a devotee of military films my personal favorite of all time is - Kelly's Heros".

44 Why people don't attend the movie theaters? Easy, $4.00 for a watered down coke. $6.00 for a bag of stale popcorn. Only God knows what a hot dog would cost.

45 Good lord, greyrooster, only a fool would eat a movie theater hotdog. They spend decades on those spits, you know.

46 John Ryan -- The Puddin Eatin Cowboys will lose money, but it's more than that. It sure as heck won't do much business outside of West Hollywood, NY, and SF. But that's not the big impact. In a time when the core male teens who make the money for Hollywood (Spider-Man, LoTR, Star Wars etc) are defecting to video games more and more; Bareback Mountin' is telling them stay away. If you WANTED to drive away the most profitable part of your audience you couldn't do a better job. It's ALL over the place. You can't escape it. [Hollywood makes most of it's money on: sales of sometimes decades old films and TV to TV and DVD, a few big blockbusters. Don't have the library sales and you go under and get sold like Dreamworks] And yeah, Ledger and Gyllenhall are done as male leads. They were already skating the line as pretty boys (Damon and Brosnan hated being "pretty" because it meant guys hated them and actors build leading man long-term careers on drawing guys to identify with them). See: Bruce Willis, Sam Jackson, Denzel Washington, etc who play men not pretty boys. People like Leno, Kimmell, Letterman, and Conan are all making fun of them and the movie. It's a joke. Stealth and Alamo lost money because it's part of the Uber-PC of Hollywood, no villains except machines and such in modern set movies. Not even Santa Anna could be made into a villain due to PC! Spider-Man and LoTR and Harry Potter were so popular because only in this format will Hollywood "allow" itself to have real heroes and real villains. Can't have Jihadi Mohammed as a bad guy, or anyone else. Meanwhile the core male teens go to video games that play like War or Adventure movies. Which is very bad for Hollywood because male teens make their big profits; stuff like Closer or Million Dollar Baby lose money despite Oscars. Hollywood is like Detroit, churning out exploding Ford Pintos year after year while Electronic Arts provides Toyota Camrys. THAT will kill them. DVDs or theaters, both are suffering drop-offs and guys moving on to the competition will KILL Hollywood (wonder why Warners and other big media companies that own studios are seeing share prices drop like rocks?) Bottom line Hollywood is not responsive to customers who just want entertainment for their dollars and is instead ticking off or alienating key sectors of the audience. This is why Icann wants Warners split up.

47 Agent Brown thinks Greyrooster was eating something that only looked like a hot dog in the movie threater. Agent Jones once had a lecture from the Architect. The Architect told him that he sees EVERYTHING people do on those TV screens.

48 Heath Ledger is in it? NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'm totally crushed. "what's "pudding"? Do I really want to know?" LOL, Carlos.

49 Making a film like Bareback Mountain on a limited budget isn't the problem -- the problem is the incessant hype surrounding it. If this was a true art house film in the old days, they could put it out in limited release in the areas where it would be accepted, it would quietly get a few good reviews from the ususal suspects and that would be that. But the publicity machine for this film is in all probability almost equal to the movie's production costs. It's being jammed down the throat (er, so to speak) of the American public, which in turn comes across as Hollywood and the entertainment industry media telling the public this is not only the type of movie we want made but the type you should be seeing -- if you're a truly caring, sensative human being. And, as Mickey Kaus has speculated, if the film does bomb upon general release in January, Hollywood and the media supporting the movie won't do any sort of self-examination about what they're doing wrong in terms of making movies people want to see; they'll simply say that most of America is a bunch of homophobic cultural Morlocks and keep on trying to make the same sort of films into 2006 and beyond.

50 Rockford, that was an excellent analysis. Spot on. I just don't give a crap who wins or loses in politically correct movies. I have no stake in a movie if there isn't a villain and a hero. So why bother. The Left is destroying Hollywood, like they destroy everything they touch. They're even a hazard to themselves.

51 Actually, I don't mind biased, liberal/left tilted message films. Some can be actually quite good. What bothers me is they try and pass off simplistic, shallow, superficial crap as "message" - celebrate themselves for doing it - then when the film dogs - blame the audience. Crap is crap - and you don't need a political scorecard to see that.

52 The Dread Pundit Bluto: The problem with movie food is that when you take kids they expect it. It's tradition. First thing out of their mouths is I want popcorn, coke, hotdogs and those little candy things (jew jew beads or something like that) (IM: don't get excited, I know, I know). I love it when the kids have crack the hotdog open.

53 Agent Smith asks, so how was that hotdog?

54 Not as long as the black one sticking out of your butt.

55 Gross movie. This movie wouldn't even be a good movie with two girls, or a girl and a guy. The movie was terrible, the theme is immortal, and the fact that people will praise it because they are afraid of what other people might think they don't condone the gay lifestyle. Put it back in the adult bookstores where it came from, please people. this is ridiculous. i want my money back!

56 I'm amazed Hollywood could produce a film like bareback mountain, it's nothing rewriting history to accommodate the ever rising tide of misleading homosexual propaganda. A few years back these producers would have been arrested. What's next? flipper and his handler a love story like other or perhaps Rome, a gladiators love for a toddler! I can see this being the biggest box office flops in movie history.

57 FYI- We are going to steel your male children away in the night, and make them watch Bareback Mountain over and over, until they are gay. Then, weÂ’re going to use your brainwashed homosexual children to build the deadliest, gayest army the world has ever seen. And then we will, with our good pal Osama, invade America, redecorating your homes with frilly curtains. You have been warned.

58 Personally, I am repulsed by one issue gays who don't seem to have any interest other than taking society down to their perverted level....uh, oh, my mind control device from Hollywierd is kicking in....must go see gay cowboy movie, it is h-h-h-h-h-h -h---horrib----no-it-it-is-corrageous-i-mean-outrageous-help-me-hollywood-tells-me-what-to-think-baaaah-baaaah- I-am-a-sheeple Osamagoestohollywoodgoesboom!

59 Relax everyone. I looked it up in the Good Book and I can assure you that everyone involved in Backseat Mountain will burn in eternal unquenchable white hot hellfire excrutiating agony for all eternity. I for one, will sleep much better tonight knowing this.

60 whoopsy daisy. what a silly goose I am. Did I get that title correct? Is it Backdoor Mountain? Or is it Backdoor Mounting? And you are all correct about theatre food sucking balls. But once when I was in san francisco, I attended a cinema that had quiche to die for! It was absolutely delightful. but, the film still sucked balls.

61 I can't believe anyone, in this day and age, could deny the fact that homosexuality is normal. How can anyone find another person's consenting, loving relationships to be 'sick' or 'weird'? Do whatever makes you feel fine. I'm glad my generation isn't as afflicted by the ills of bigotry as so many here seem to be.

62 sheesh. what a sorehead.

63 Seriously, what's up the pudding thing? I mean, I like pudding. But I'm not GAY???

64 Sooooooohooohooo.... Looks like people are getting all in a tissy about "gays on the big dic...screen". That was almost a freudian. Like GAYS are new news. ROCK HUDSON. Ain't he dead? So there you go. The trend that Hollywood is in these days is that a more diverse movie can actually get a budget. THAT'S GOOD!(for all you cavemen)Targeting a market that they used to think wouldn't make money. Remember the dark days of Hollywood. When the only thing Hollywood thought guys would pay to see was crappy sci-fi's like freejack and a slew of vandamnage and segallage ball-punching fests. Do you wanna really go back there? Didn't think so. It's great for me because I'm really dig motorcycle racing. There was a movie made in Europe called "Faster" documenting the world sport of MotoGP racing. I was dying to see this film but nobody would bring it to America. Then oddly, the same studio that now brought us broke back mountain, imported Faster to a limited market showing. I had to drive all the way to D.C. But I saw it. Just remember, the system is slow but it works. Nobody wanted to budget "Passion of the Christ" cause they said it wouldn't make money. Eventually there will be a movie that is guarunted to tailor fit to you and offend everyone else that's not. Just be patient. I could take 20 years. Let's all unite and defend diversity in our film and our culture. Because the wise realize!(I should make that t-shirt) In a weird way, "Brokeback" is oddly patriotic. Not the fact that it portrays "it" going "in" the "out", but that it really does a great job putting the majority(moral white folk) onto their heels shouting for good and decincy. A good shouting match between liberals and conservatives is always fun to watch. Because no one can win. AHHH smell the Democracy. I love the discension this film caused. But honestly, just be glad you know that you love it, or hate it. That's consoling. Most people don't have any feeling at all about it or the well fare of this great union. And they run the country. Now if you think I'm advocating the content, I'm not into the gay acts myself. Which is why I didn't go. That's my little form of protest. Not forking my hard earned nine dollars to see something I don't like. Besides why should we all give money to some guy that wants a personal jet to fly between his mansions on the east and west coasts. THAT GUY SHOULD BE ME!! But the real reason the movie industry is failing, they forget reason #2. TV has to many good shows on. I don't have to risk death driving when I can slowly let my legs atrophy from "lazy" I caught on my 25th birthday. OUT!

65 Fuck. These two bastards ain't even COWboys. they herd (and hump) SHEEP!!

1 In light of this information, can you explain to me what this means? What prompted this group to kill some hostages, and let others go? What do you make of their silence? Thanks, Jill

2 Speculation has been that they are trying to raise money for their terror operations, but that is just speculation. They also never released their last snuff video of the murder of Ronald Schulz. It may be that they are getting more media savvy and realize there is some propaganda value in keeping the peace activists alive.

3 "It may be that they are getting more media savvy and realize there is some propaganda value in keeping the peace activists alive." Or, more accurately, they realize they've fucked up and kidnapped the wrong people. I mean, not even hardline extremists have their backs on this one. So, what do they do? They can't kill them because they'll drive even more Muslims away from their brand of thinking. But they can't let them go, because then it looks like they've capitulated or have admitted they've fucked up.

4 Also Venom, if they kill them, they risk alienating the rest of the Useful Idiot dhimmis of the CPT, though the chance is small, as no matter what they do, America will take the blame.

5 They killed Margaret Hassan who worked for their shithole of a country for 20 years. These scum will kill anyone...just depends on what side of the bed they wake up on or if their football team loses.

6 Jester, But they aren't dumb (presumably), just evil. Is it possible that they realize they miscalculated in the Hassan and Baldoni cases?

7 Hassan and Baldoni only served to exacerbate America's problems though, since the media went into instant spin cycle in order to deflect the blame from the true criminals onto America.

8 Producing a snuff video that al Jazeera refused to play indicates a serious miscalculation. If, as Rusty says, they're not stupid, the CPT hostages may survive. Btw, linked to this story, but haven't been able to ping your site with a trackback for some time now.

9 Even with the kidnapping of Hassan, you didn't see anywhere near this level of Islamist pleas for her release.

10 Rusty, you de man, man. Congrats on great coverage of the news in Iraq. The MSM has been scooped again, thanks to the Jawa and others in the blogging community. Pajama's rule!

11 Terrorists good, America Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, you're coming through loud and clear Background. Where ever there is to be evil found on earth, scratch the surface and the U.S is behind it. Get a life hippy.

12 You know I can fix any link that does not suck.

13 Hmm Maryland?

14 rita recieves all of our information but does not necessarily communicate back to us. I read her intel alerts daily and i too have informed her of things and have not heard back from her, but i am confident that she has recieved my messages. if you recall, she has reported on several occassions that these groups are also becoming more conscious and have been recieving "warnings" from their "friends" to be careful of when and where they send out their "communiques" for fear of being caught kudos to both you and rita for picking up on that link between the two groups. somehow i am not surprised. there is always something strange with those who hide their faces. it reminds me of the old southern police forces and the KKK. keep up the excellent work.

15 Margaret Hassan, God Bless her sole, was killed b/c she helped the vicitms of the oil for food scam and knew something she should not have known. This did not sit well with Jaques Chiraq and the Batthists. I do not believe for one second that the Christian Peacemakers who were there for two plus years had no insight into something that did not sit well with someone over there. This is the reason they have been taken and not released. Their organization is very pro Palestinian and one of the Canadians was very active in the Palestinian cause. They f****ed up indeed, just as they did with Daniel Pearl who had pictures taken with Sheik Yassin and just as Zarqawi did by shooting up a Palestinian wedding party in Jordan. But it is most likely too late.

16 "I think their apparent indifference to the worldwide pleas of Muslims from all political persuasions raises an interesting question of whether or not the kidnappers are jihadists as they claim to be." Background, and why would jihadists respond to the "worldwide" pleas of muslims? Isn't it your story that these terrorists aren't true muslims? Talk about a Freudian slip.

17 That's exactly what they claim, Carlos. I eagerly await a response to your question. Eagerly await, but do not expect one.

18 Why are you contacting UFO hunters? Oh wait, that's SETI, not SITE. ha.

19 To answer the commentary: Terrorists bad.... death squads bad. It's not a zero sum game. The "Salvador Option" may have worked against poor peasants in Central American rainforests... but extra judicial assassinations haven't really gotten the Israelis very far now have they? Painting all Muslims as rabid death cultists is as irresponsible as painting all Americans as Halliburton apologists. There is no question that Hamas, Hezbollah, and most of the other known terrorist organizations that jumped on the "free the hostage" bandwagon are merely looking for some cheap publicity. But how do you explain the ordinary people demonstrating every day in the West Bank? How do you explain Muslims in Canadian detention? The fact is the CPT 4 do have credibility amongst Palestinians. That is why they were travelling with Iraqi Palestinians and visiting Sunni clerics. Those are the groups being targeted by Shi'ite death squads. Folks here claim a) they have evidence of files linking IAI to the kidnappers, b) Rita Katz plagiarized the findings. OK... is there any forensics to back up their assertion? Rita Katz has noted in at least one interview that groups actually steal each others tapes in an effort to claim credit. How do you know where the tapes came from? Here's the thing about IAI that raises a question for me... the CPT 4 are well regarded and well known by Palestinians... They are in Iraq investigating death squad activities that target Palestinians. IAI originally included former militants from the Palestine Liberation Front. That is the group started by Abu Abbas. The PLF are allied with Fatah. Even Fatah's militant wing, Al Aqsa Martyrs, is calling for the release of the hostages....

20 I'm quite skeptical of the reaction from so many that if terrorist groups are calling for their release then, "by golly" there must be something to it. Let us not forget what prompted the Shias to behave in the manner that they were subjected to for decades. I'm not condoning what they've been caught doing - since we've found at least two instances of them torturing people (real torture) in basements or prisons. So don't get me wrong. But it seems to me that there's something terribly wrong with those who are quick to react to the terrorists being upset or the thinly veiled, underlying hope that they can find Americans involved somehow. Yet, they continue with the stark silence on the bleak atmosphere found in Fallujah with copious amounts of blood, executed bodies and those fortunate enough to be found chained and tortured, but still alive. Not to mention their lack of concern for all the other hostages brutally murdered who never did a thing to anyone. The groups screaming bloody murder about mistreatment at the hands of Shias while remaining silent on the daily murders of innocent people in Iraq and everywhere else in the world by Sunnis, Wahabis and Qutbs is what I find disgusting and duplicitous. And they make fun of the US with their slogan "Don't do as I do, do as I say"? Hello? Background Noise can barely contain his glee at the hope of further discrediting more Americans. No matter how far he has to stretch truth or what weak connections he has to make. If he wants an explanation of those "ordinary people" demonstrating everyday - they're doing that in larger numbers everywhere. They're sick and damn tired of terrorism, expecially now that they realize they're tragets too. They're demonstrating in Jordan, Pakistan India and even here in the US. They're releasing some pretty strong statements denouncing terrorism in all its forms and the press is largely ignoring it or merely mentioning these statements as an aside. But let the terror groups utter a single word an it's splashed across the front page. As I've said before, the CPTers don't care when people are mistreated unless the mistreatment is a retaliation or defense. They're anti-war and there's no war unless someone fights back. And CPT's goal is to document anything wrong, no matter how minute, committed by those who fight back - completely ignoring who started it and what atrocities they may have committed. I find it all deplorable and Background Noise and others play willingly into their propaganda scheme.

21 I have four comments in response to the follow ups on my original post. First, the issue of the IAI raises questions for me. They were founded in part by former PLF members. Given the fact the CPT 4 are well known and generally adored by Palestinians, it seems odd that a group containing PLF fighters would do anything to harm them. Especially when the most radical elements of Fatah (e.g. Al Aqsa Martyrs) are calling for their release. Second, for those who think I am painting this as "terrorist good ....America bad".... let be very clear about my motivations here. There are two. First is doing whatever can be done to increase the survivability of the hostages. Since this hostage ordeal began, most efforts on behalf of the hostages were aimed at publicizing Muslim appeals for their release because everyone assumed jihadists were holding them. These do not seem to be having any impact. If the kidnappers are related to death squads, let us hope the people who have control over them realize that if these hostages are killed, even US major media will have to cover the story in some detail. The reason they went to Iraq will inevitably become a topic of discussion. That would naturally focus worldwide attention on the "special police and military units" they were investigating in the first place. Third has to do with our obligation to support our troops. I know people who have been deployed. I know people who ARE deployed. I know people who have lost children. The people serving are not an abstraction to me. The vast majority of Americans serving in Iraq are decent men and women trying as hard as they can to do the right thing even though they are working under terrible conditions. Someone talked about the soldier administering morphine to a dying child. Who can forget the soldiers who defended the Bagdhad orphanage during the early looting period? Not everything is so dramatic. The kid who was killed... he was building roads. He was making things better. I have a whole new appreciation for highways now. We take highways for granted. Although this site doesn't accept BBC links, the fact is the gruesome report of tortured prisoners found in the basement of the Interior Ministry reported it was American troops who found them. The death squads and the "Salvador Option" are an insult to the men and women who are decent. They sully our reputation and mock the values people are dying to defend. I feel obliged to honor their sacrifice and defend our values by having the courage to ask direct questions, expect honest answers, and demand accountability from policymakers. Finally, I am not looking for some cheap way to use this situation to voice my opposition to invading Iraq before we finished in Afghanistan. There are plenty of other things I can point to that more directly support that argument. I am not interested in arguing that here. All I will say is that before we went in a woman who grew up in a military family, and married into a military family said it best in her letter to the editor: "I am not haunted by the fear that my brother will be sent to war. I believe there are beliefs and causes worth taking risks for, worth fighting and dying for. Rather, I am haunted by the fear that he will be sent to war thoughtlessly, carelessly." -- Cara Cannon Byington (Jan. 15, 2003)

22 Oyster: Although my prior response addressed criticims and attributions you and others have raised, I wanted to directly address your mistaken attribution about the Christian Peacemaker Teams in general and Tom Fox in particular. They are not turning a blind eye to one side's atrocities. They reject ALL violence. Tom Fox left a blog http://waitinginthelight.blogspot.com where he discusses these matters in detail. His first entry makes it clear that he is motivated in part by the quote from Jesus found in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas: "Don't lie and don't do what you hate because all things are revealed under heaven." He specifically talks about how confronting soldiers and kidnappers will require him to move beyond anger and fear. That is very hard to do. But it is noble. It is honest. It is important. It is the way out of this mess. Fox and Kember are not kids. They are seasoned men who have struggled against violence for decades. They do that out of a compassionate expression of their faith. It may be hard for you to believe they love their fellow country men as much as the people they seek to help. You have to accept that on faith. I agree with you that ordinary people around the world are speaking out against terrorism because they simply want to live their lives. I also agree with you that media coverage of the spectacular has routinely crowded out the voices of reason. It enrages me that zealots on all sides routinely betray the aspirations of the people they claim to defend. I carry no brief for terrorists. I don't believe Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad love Palestinians any more than Saddam Hussein did. Anyone who uses children as cannon fodder is wicked. There is no other way to view that. What sets men like Fox, Loney, Sooden, and Kember apart from most people is they hold the captives and captors in their prayers. They struggle to find that place beyond anger and fear. When I think of King Hussein's eulogy for Yitzhak Rabin, I think that is what he was talking about when he spoke of "the camp of peace" when he addressed his comments to "those who live in darkness who are the enemies of life" and said "this is where we stand. This is our camp. May God bless you with the realization that you must join it and we pray that He will, but otherwise we are not ashamed, nor are we afraid, nor are we anything but determined to fulfill the legacy for which my friend fell." I remember when he gave that eulogy how the words tumbled out of him with a force I could only describe as a wind that came through time. It wasn't until later that I learned he was a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhhamed. Before the war Mike Kelly called the people opposing it "Liars, Frauds, and Hypocrites". He mellowed a bit when it was pointed out that he was maligning many honest people of faith. He declared they were "useful idiots" dancing to the Worker's World Party's A.N.S.W.E.R. When it was pointed out that many of the mothers marching on the Mall were motivated more by Mark and Luke than Marx and Lenin, he modified his tone. He spoke about the horrors he witnessed with his own eyes in Kuwait and the need to confront evil. When the war came, he didn't sit behind a desk in Boston and write testosterone-laden cant. He went to Iraq. He didn't go because he wanted a thrill ride as an "embedded journalist" doing victory laps like Ollie North. He went because he felt it was important to witness and report honestly on the war he truly believed needed to be fought. He died too young and we are the poorer for it. But he left us a gift. The final question in the final paragraph of the final column for the "Atlantic," published after his death, said it all. It is a question worth pondering. It is a question that will haunt the men who took us to war from now until the end of history. "The question is whether the employment of this unfathomable power will be largely for good, leading to the liberation of a tyrannized people and the spread of freedom, or largely for bad, leading to imperialism and colonialism,with a consequent corruption of America's own values and freedoms." - Mike Kelly , "What Now?", The Atlantic Monthly , May 2003 With that gift comes an obligation to write that future history mindful of the legacy we were given so we may leave a legacy worthy of those who will follow.

23 They are getting smarter about what they post and where. They have been caught too many times. I'm having jihad troll withdrawls. That has got to be teh funnest part of Jawa. They come and post and we put em up on the front page or take em down. Finally they realize posting here is not so bright. Darn. But really the commentators and writers here deserve a big old pat on the back. We have trolled many into giving themselves away. I've not posted on that for a bit becuase ti's just not there. As soon as I see one thought boom we'll let him have it. Filthy had one last week go over there and check it out.

24 According to Background noise, King Hussein is a direct descendant of Mohammed. WHAT? Somebody give me some proof of this. Please!

25 Through his great-grandfather, the prophet Mohammad was himself a Hashemite, a subdivision of the Quraysh tribe of what is now Saudi Arabia. The most revered Hashemite line then passed through Hassan, son of the ProphetÂ’s daughter Fatima and her husband Ali, the fourth caliph. Hassan was the last of this line to hold the disputed claim to the caliphate, but his progeny eventually established themselves as hereditary emirs of Mecca, the role continuing under Ottoman rule. The last of the line to rule as emir of Mecca and King of Hijaz along the Red Sea was Hussain bin Ali. Ibn Saudi, the founder of Saudi Arabia, conquered the Hijaz in 1924 and deposed Hussein, thus ending Hashemite rule of the region and the holy places of Islam. The new Saudi dynasty, supported by the Wahhabi Muslim sect, proclaimed itself Guardians of the Shrines of Islam HusseinÂ’s dispossessed sons, Abdullah and Faisal, were later placed on the newly-created thrones of Amman and Baghdad, respectively. The Hashemite line survived in Jordan but not in Baghdad. Faisal was assassinated on July 14, 1958 in a military coup that soon led to the rise of Saddam Hussein at the head of the Baath regime. In 1951, Abdullah was murdered by a Muslim zealot at the door of al Aqsa mosque on JerusalemÂ’s Temple Mount. Two years later, his grandson Hussein succeeded to the Jordanian throne as a boy king. He reigned until his death in 1999, when he was succeeded by his eldest son Abdullah II. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=921 At the time of his passing on February 7, 1999, His Majesty was the longest serving executive head of state in the world. Of great significance to Muslims throughout the world, the late King Hussein was also the forty-second generation direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/biography.html His Majesty King Abdullah II is the 43rd generation direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/king_abdullah2.html

26 By there very words and deeds, the CPTers have taken a side in this. To say they deplore the acts of terrorism, yet, carefully document every misstep of those who seek to liberate the oppressed and focus on what they believe to be the motives of the liberators, portraying them as wrong-doers at every opportunity, is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst. I stand by my assessment. Their actions belie what they say. I find them to be misled souls. I don't believe they're evil. I believe they truly think that what they do is just and correct. I think they're wrong. That's all.

27 I'm not surprised they're all related with the amount of inbreeding in the muslim world.

28 Ah the CPTs! Hmmmmm ... If they're killed how would this play out to a western audience? Why do people insist on believing that the jidhadists are concerned with western audiences for anything except shock and fear factor? How would this play out to an arab/islamist street audience - and the jidhadists themselves? That's the real question.

29 8ackground: How long have you been out of the Iraqi asylum?

30 Oyster, with all due respect for your opinion, and no small respect at that, I must say this: "Misled souls" my ass. They are flaming liberals who hate America and would aid terrorists against us in any way, because according to them, we're the only evil in the world. You're just too nice a person to believe the awful truth, and bless you for it, but I think you've given them too much credit. People who are so mentally defective should not be allowed to walk free, much less be given any legitimacy.

31 IM, at first I thought you were going to correct me on using "there" instead of "their" in my first sentence ;-) (I hate it when I screw up like that) But ... point taken, sir.

32 Howie wrote: They are getting smarter about what they post and where. They have been caught too many times. I'm having jihad troll withdrawls. That has got to be teh funnest part of Jawa. They come and post and we put em up on the front page or take em down. Finally they realize posting here is not so bright. Darn. But really the commentators and writers here deserve a big old pat on the back. We have trolled many into giving themselves away. First off, it's a little on the juvenile side to deride someone as a troll when you can't address any of the comments in a substantive way. That's just lazy. Second, I realize this is your private little playground and First Amendment issues don't apply. That's why I make my points respectfully and without invective. Third, and this is the most important for you in particular. The reason I stumbled across this corner of the net was you were claiming to have confirmation about the likely identity of the kidnappers. Instead, you have taken the intellectually untenable position of saying: a) Rita Katz plagiarized your work and b) Rita Katz confirms your finding Plagiarism and confirmation are not synonyms.

33 Ackground has realized I enjoy games!!!!! And if I label a troll a troll it's just that. Personally when some jihadist moron posts stuff like. "Bush must die", "F*uck all Christians", F*uck the Virgin Mary" Death to this that and the other I'll call em a jihadist troll all I want. Hey you guys it's a news flash. Howie is a bit juvenile and enjoys blog games with Jihadist trolls and loves to watch and catch the little bastards. It's just like fishin don't tell me you don't like fishin.

34 Howie: NEWSFLASH: There's a reason they call it fishing instead of catching. Speaking of clarification.... care to distinquish your claim of confirmation from plaigerism, or did you get caught with your pants down?

35 Uh would you care to read the authors name Mr. is probably greg.

36 Shackleford posted it. CTT said he has also sent SITE the info. You have said You know I can fix any link that does not suck. I went back to review it and apparently the whole diatribe about the plagiarism has been snipped from this thread. So correct me if I'm wrong: You in charge of this site or not? You exercise editorial discretion or not? Regardless of who answers it, the question is still out there based on material originally provided by this thread: Did SITE "confirm" or "plagiarize" the evidence cited? Pick one. It can't be both.

37 Rusty can speak for himself he's a big boy.

38 Oh yeah. Links eh. I don't get the hostility. I tried your CNN link and sure enough it was rejected. I will fix links for you but they would be subject to my own judgement of rather the link was worth the trouble or not. I'd do this for just about any one for just about any link. But that was just a heads up that just because you submit one does not mean I will post it but I may post it.

39 Yeah not cathing any becaue the deep freeze is full maybe.

40 never in a million years would i say rita katz plagerized or snipped anything from me. i merely said i have reported things to her and not heard back from her. sorry but this is a "we" thing and as far as i am concerned, i do not need the credit. she and i are definately "fighting" (and neither of us want to be by the way) on the same side, i can assure you of that. but thank your for your concern mr. noise

41 howie/rusty did you hear the latest "chatter" about the peaceworkers and what they are saying "to do" with them? i won't post it here as i do not want to violate any rules or cause any trouble, but i may post it at mine later on, waiting for some confirmations.

42 CTT .... maybe you missed the opening lines of the post that started this thread: Islamic Army in Iraq Link to Peace Activist Hostages Confirmed The Jawa Report was the first media outlet to report that there was a possible connection between the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Swords of Righteousness Brigade, the group responsible for kidnapping four Western peace activists in Iraq, in a November 29th posting. In fact, what is said by the director of the SITE Institute in this Canadian National Post article comes awfully close to plagiarism. [emphasis added] Hence my question: Did SITE confirm the finding independently or did they parrot it? You can appreciate how those are qualitatively different. One increases credibility and the other makes you look like an echo chamber.

43 Strange that you mention the word plagiarism.

44 I didn't say she 'plagiarized' it, I said it 'comes awfully close to plagiarism'. That means what she is saying is strikingly similar to what I have been saying. Hence, the qualified statement. But, thanks for playing.

45 Oh...well that comes awfully close to answering it... You are awfully close to being an echo chamber.... or you are awfully close to being full of crap.... or awfully close to both. Thanks for clearing that up.

1 What sealed his fate was he refusal to admit to the crimes. Apparently the evidence was incontrovertible.

2 Yes Carlos under the law he is guilty. So it was his choice. A lawyer once told me that the truth has very little to do with it. But to describe him as "innocent" is a bit much. Under the law he was convicted and that is the reality he had to deal with. He chose how to deal with it.

3 Oh pity poor Tookie! A lil' sympathy pleeeeaaassseee! I mean ... think about it ... He founded the Crips but never got to cash in on the lucrative crack epedemic! Never got to see the big money, babes, cars .. making the Rap scene! I mean ... Even the vehicle available to him on his enterprising crime spree was a ........ barrowed stationwagon ... how lame is that! And his take ... 'bout 200+ dollars - ya can't even get a decent gold chain for that amount! And his #1 son (lil' Tookie)- also doing time for murder (small time petty thing) And his #2 son (Layette) - something about raping a 13 yr old girl at gunpoint - but wait!!!!!!!! DNA tests reveal ... mama was indeed a ho! ... son #2 (not)! Even his bitch gave him no respect! Oh well, Tookie! I and probably several others here are sympathetic and wish you well on your next journey.

4 How ironic the left want to hold him up high, as an icon of "redemption" because of his work on Children's books that were supposed to deter them from a life of crime. However he failed to even help his OWN Children, and somehow we should pity this poor man, whom captained his own ship to his timely death, and took four productive members of society with him. Pass me a Kleenex.

5 Tookie wasn't "reformed". He wrote some children's books. Child molesters draw pictures of Jesus. Are they "reformed"? Not only did he not admit his guilt, he also refused to help law enforcement stop other gangbangers by giving names, all the while abusing guards and other inmates in prison. "But, he was being good." You'd be good too if you were in maximum security. And he wasn't being good for years and years after his incarceration anyway. After that he just stopped causing so much trouble. Against the backdrop of constant violence I guess anything looked like an improvement. In his letter of apology he wrote, "...I no longer participate in the so-called gangster lifestyle." Duh. Think that has anything to do with twelve years (at the time) on death row? Excuse me if I don't mourn his death.

6 I believe Gacy painted a few pictures too...I won't be mourning him either.

7 Wow, have you read Baldilocks' smack down on a commenter regarding Tookie Williams? Whew. That woman is baaaaad. Someone invented a new lexicon: Baldismacked.

8 I must admit that watching the Leftwingers feverishly agitate to no avail was the biggest reason I'm glad Tookie got his. Am I bad?

9 Carlos, you're such a stinker. ;-)

10 If you want to see the "live, and let live" and "Tookie redeemed himself" crowd at their finest, I might suggest this entry: http://blogs.m ercurynews.com/aei/2005/12/the_day_i_inter.html (remove space, censored domain) Almost a sickness.

11 What no comments on the effectiveness of buckshot? Darn I thought IM would jump all over that. I'll make it easy for em Dave. daves link

12 Lack of judgement is the first indicator of the young or the fool. I would imagine that both apply in the case of the liberals fawning all over the "life and times" of Tookie Williams. But you see, Tookie 'took' it to the man. In the estimation of the foolish and immature, this trumped the fact that the man murdered four people in cold blood. I cannot find it in my heart to worry about the ultimate fate of Tookie Williams. I'll leave that to God.

13 Yes JJ and old fool is the best kind. It's hard to be stupid forever even if you had to learn it the hard way like me.

14 Some facts about his children's books. They were published by an anti-death penalty advocate. He was asked to sign on and he gave a few words. With his day looming to fulfil the death sentence (mind you, 26 years after judgement) it was convenient cooperation. Of course, who was at his defense in his final weeks? btw... Those children's books didn't sell in the hundred thousands, ten thousands, or thousands. They totaled a few hundred.

15 Yep and his co-author vowed to prove his innocence today. Be careful lady you get far enough into this to prove that and you may find other stuff that is even worse to change your mind about him.

16 Howie, Your view of the matter appears to mesh well with my own. It is never a happy thing but the sadness does not focus on the execution but the whole messed up chain of events that leads to the execution. I witnessed an execution some years ago in the Middle East (it was a firing squad). The condemned were guilty of using police credentials (one was a member of the local police) to kidnap money changes, kill them, and take their money. I watched the two waiting to die and one chain smoked (with the assistance of the guards) and the other was totally limp (tied up so he couldn't lay down but I doubt there was an ounce of strength in limpy's body). I felt sorry for them but if given a knife to cut them free I would have dashed that knife onto the desert sands.

17 My sentiments too, Marcus. If Tookie's execution hadn't been so long in the coming, it may have played out differently in the eyes of the general public. The murders were committed so long ago that the horror of it had long since worn off. There is no good reason why it should take twenty-five years to go through the appeals process. Punishment must be swift while correctly applied or we'll see this happen again. People are generally forgiving given enough time and the idea of justice becomes secondary. It's not fair to the families of those who suffer at the hands of these killers.

18 My only question? What the hell took them so long? The punk got to live longer than his victims.

19 Agent Smith smells the sweet smell of liberalism right here.

20 Funny how the media in Australia reports the retaliations against the muslims. When "muslim youth" do the same thing it is a "protest" when Europeans do less than what these muslim youth do, it is racism. BTW, like in France, the muslims burn cars at a pretty good clip. I am amazed that the Australians don't start vandalizing all the propaganda dispensers. (Those machines with the newspapers in it) It would serve the idiots right but also to spit in the faces of reporters as well for their onesided play footsie with the muslim thugs. I'll dig it up, but an expolice officer in a newspaper article about a year ago said this had been going on for 20 years.

21 http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=581 In 1994 I was stationed at Redfern. A well known Lebanese family who lived not far from the old Redfern Police Academy were terrorising the locals with random assaults, drug dealing, robberies and violent anti-social behaviour. When some young police from Redfern told me about them, curiosity got the better of me and I asked them to show me the street they lived in. Despite the misgivings of the young police, I eventually saw this family and the presence they had in the immediate area. As we drove away in our marked police car, a half-brick bounced on the roof of the vehicle. The driver kept going. I said, “What are you doing, they’ve just hit the car with a house brick!” The young constable said, “Oh, they always do that when we drive past.” The police were either too scared or too lazy to do anything about it. The damage bill on police cars became costly and these street terrorists grew stronger and the police became purely defensive. You see, the Police Royal Commission was about to start and the police retreated inside themselves knowing that the judicial system considered them easy targets. The police did not want to get hurt or attract Internal Affairs complaints.

1 ????????????

2 Yep, mine died three different times. But, heh, Rusty, I did the makeup test and made a goo...well..kinda goo...ok, bad grade. I should have taken it the first time. Are you happy?

3 Most common excuse for rescheduling exams.

4 Do any of the excuses involve the dog?

5 Let's keep in mind that sometimes the excuse is true. Some cynicism is understandable, but I'm sure Dr. Shackleford handles the requests delicately.

6 I see your grandmother dying and raise you a bad case of pneumonia.

7 In light of this information, can you explain to me what this means? What prompted this group to kill some hostages, and let others go? What do you make of their silence? Thanks, Jill

8 I don't know if you've ever mentioned it here or not since I found your blog several months ago, but what do you teach (in general terms) if you don't mind my asking? If you prefer not to answer, I understand. If I ever got motivated enough to publish my own, I would probably try to stay as underground as possible.

9 so good Doctor Are you working with a proscribed curve? Any inflationary pressures? A system of your own design? The real fun begins after posting - that's when the complaints and stories really get desperate.

10 Just tell them what my First Sergeant told me: "She'll still be dead afterwards, won't she?"

11 My dog used to eat of lot of non-edibles during finals week.

12 They don't just die-they die IN MEXICO. Some place far far away is the ticket.

13 I had never heard it when I was a student, so I was shocked my first semester as a teacher to have three students tearfully tell me about grandma's demise. Makes you want to assign a big paper and have it due before finals.

14 I never used a dead anybody excuse. Nearly everytime I was presented with being late on something I'd be completely honest: "I'm not going to demean your intelligence by creating some crappy story of how the dog ate my homework. I'm late. I screwed up. What can I do to fix it?" Yes, it was either this or a crappy school system that got me my Magna.

1 It's a sad day when: "Ali, who are you voting for?" "The guy with the lint on the right side of his ski mask." "Really? I'm voting for the one with the goat milk stains around the mouth opening."

2 Agent Brown spotted Usama Bin Laden drinking frappucino at the Starbucks next to the J. Edgar Hoover Building. Agent Jones says Usama is camping out in the Green River Valley of Utah. Agent Smith says Usama is taking over the O'Reilly Factor next week.

3 You'd think by now that the EU would have realised that whenever they engage in dialog with another party, they always end up getting the short end of the stick, while the other guys usually walk away with ridculous sums of money or concessions galore. How long will it be before the terror groups feel comfortable enough to run for political office in European countries? What'll the Europeans say then? No? On what grounds? That they're terrorists?

4 All u fans of this site, remember this:" Ich habe ess nicht gewusst" - You are gonna need it! "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." Einstein - now go call him stupid LOL

5 You don't think, the army thinks for you.... That just says it all about this site.

6 Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist. Oh! Would that all civilized nations had adopted his philosophy in 1935! What a garden of earthly delights we...wait a minute.

7 Bluto, You sure know how to bring out the anti-Semites. And their meaningless threats.

8 Heh. You little kos kiddies are funny. You're not quite as smart as you seem to think you are. Not by a long shot, yet you persist. I guess there is virtue in persistance for its own sake, but persistance is not a sign of intelligence, merely stubbornness, and stubbornness in the face of reality is stupidity. Yet you refuse to accept reality, and choose to substitute your own alternate reality, one in which up is down, black is white, enemies are friends, and friends, enemies. Many people who hold such a twisted perception are committed to mental health care facilities because they are a danger to themselves and others. What are you? Who are you? A group who, though mostly young, inexperienced, and unaccomplished, deign to lecture your elders and betters on the fine points of military and economic matters, domestic and international relations, and every other problem which we face. You who do not even understand basic economics cry for the equal distribution of wealth. You who do not understand human nature cry for the appeasement of the murderous. You who do not understand Liberty heap adulation upon dictators and war criminals. You who do not understand the rights and duties of citizenship, nor understand patriotism, would dictate to us how best to run our country. In short, you have nothing meaninful to contribute to our society, yet you demand an equal say in running it, though you, as a group, have demonstrated time and again that you are not even responsible enough to manage your own lives. You are petulent children; brats who are constantly underfoot and irritatingly insistant on being the center of attention though you have done nothing to warrant attention, at least nothing positive. When you feel ignored, you march and chant slogans and break windows, crying out for the adults to look at you and applaud your little tantrums as cleverness rather than the petty childishness which they really are. You don't need a voice in society, you need a good old-fashioned whipping with a hickory switch, like my grandmother gave me whenever I acted as a small child the way in which liberals act as "adults". I deserved every whipping I got, and I learned how to behave responsibly as a result, (it's called "being an adult", you should try it sometime, it's not always fun, but it is better than going through life as a bratty child), whereas apparently you liberals have never been shown the error of your ways, and so persist in behaving as spoiled, bratty children who desperately need your little backsides beaten black and blue. Grow up, move out of your mom's basement, and learn to behave not only as adults, but as citizens.

9 Ah, Einstein the pacifist: http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/nuclear1.htm Einstein, reacting to the danger from Hitler's aggression, had already abandoned his strict pacifism. He now signed a letter that was delivered to the American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning him to take action. This letter, and a second Einstein-Szilard letter of March 1940, joined efforts by other scientists to prod the United States government into preparing for nuclear warfare.

10 Graeme, Dietrich Boenhoffer is another historical figure these Libs like to quote and trot out as a "pacificist". And yes, he did start out that way, but was eventually executed for his role in a plot to assassinate Hitler. Some "pacifist", huh?

11 Graeme and Maxie, And they are not intelligent in a meaningful way, i.e. they read the posts of the Lefty professors and psydo-intellectuals and regurgitate whatever they read or hear rather than trying for independant thought. Really, these kids should be more the subject of pity rather than dirision. A pathetic example of public education is what they are. And what is worse is that they don't see their own hypocrisy. They decry war, yet make violent threats. They claim to value diversity, but only the diversity they approve of, not real diversity of thought. They claim to want to erase hate from the world, but they are hateful. Like I said, they are pathetic individuals.

12 JJ's right on all counts. Although I'm a bit more carefull whom I pity. The hardcore leftie turds which visit everyday aren't worthy of pity. There are far more worthy cases. The same pinnacles of intellect they so enjoy quoting to back up their cause would be ashamed of their treason. They are a disgrace.

13 Being a liberal is easy. Most of us were liberal when we were younger. I was. I snapped out of it before I even reached my twenties when life dealt me a few blows early on. When you're young and idealistic that peaceful world where everyone shares and no one has a harsh thought is still possible to you. You don't understand, just emerging from under your parent's wings, that not everyone is interested in letting you go about your life, blissfully unaware of evil. Once you get knocked around a bit, you have two choices 1) complain or 2) act. Complaining just got me more of the same.

14 As someone who spent the first thirty minutes of the day, reading blog comments of the left celebrating the life of Tookie, the quadruple cold-blooded murderer as some sort of icon to humanity I have to wonder whom are the ones they label as blood-thirsty warmongers again? --but, but dave he wrote a children's book years after he killed his victims with a sawn-off shotgun while they offered no resistance.

15 I'm glad to say that not all libs are utterly hopeless, as I manage to make at least one or two converts a month down at the pub, where I hold court, regularly dispensing wisdom and wit in proper measure, in accord with the appetite of those who hunger. The most unfortunate thing about most of the libs I meet is that though they are naturally skeptical people who are curious about life and mistrusting of orthodoxy, (which in and of itself is a healthy attitude), they are easily misled. This is because, due to their youth and inexperience, they are willing to accept an idea if it makes sufficient appeal to their emotions, without proper regard for objective reason, and so are lead down the primrose path by those who do not offer a true alternative based on reason and logic balanced by compassion and humanity, but rather another stale orthodoxy which has been well-disproven time and again, yet which refuses to die. There's nothing wrong with being liberal, per se, but there's plenty wrong with the orthodoxy of Liberalism , which brooks no dissent and thus allows no objective, rational discourse on subjects relevant to the base ideology of the orthodoxy. And, as we should all know, orthodoxy is the death of progress, because it kills genius and prevents change. And so, I fight the good fight one or two nights a week, opening eyes and awakening minds, teaching people how to think for themselves, which inevitably leads to enlightenment, and away from Leftism.

16 Alas I was liberal too once. I soon discovered that liberals take a lot and give back very little. The concept of sharing to them is give to those too idle to do things for themselves.

17 >>>"The most unfortunate thing about most of the libs I meet is that though they are naturally skeptical people who are curious about life and mistrusting of orthodoxy, (which in and of itself is a healthy attitude), they are easily misled." Somone real smart said that people who believe in nothing will believe in anything. Libs fit the bill to a tee.

18 That's true Carlos, which also explains how religious cults manage to suck in so many innocent, well-meaning people.

19 Let me put a finer point on it Jester: To them, sharing means taking from those who are productive, and giving to those who are unproductive. Somehow, libs never manage to see themselves as being in the taxable class though...

20 Damn: I M's on a roll. Applause, dancing, opening the good stuff. Go for it Bro.

1 "We were this close to getting Saddam to comply when that cowboy Bush ..."

2 "Hans was convinced Saddam would comply! Why their last meeting in the palace was quite fruitful - afterwards, all were in a jovial mood! Saddam even entertained everyone present with his favorite song ... We'll meet again - don't know where - don't know when - but I know that it will be - some Sunni day! He has a good voice you know!"

3 "I'm going to let President Ahmadinejad give it to me this far up my keister. Metaphorically speaking, that is. Then again, he looks soooo HOT with that beard, don't you think?"

4 "To protect Iran's and NK's natural right to develop nuclear weapons, we shall restrict the warmongering West's arsenal to a single Bowie Knife, this long." "And the Israeli approached the Palestinian civilian .. pshew pshew pshew." "Annan told me to bend me over, took two of his fingers and ... " "From border to border, Israel should be yay-wide." "UN? Global peace and security? We're intrinsically woven into the same fabric, see?"

5 Soooo....what brown skin folk we toasting the death of today? And which American soldiers we ignoring the deaths of by lies today? Bueller?

6 The string is stretched across my fingers, see? Take this finger under this one like this; go over that one, around these 3, pull 'em back and whaddya got? Baby in a basket! What, you not into string art? This is indicative of how we conduct nuclear investigations, very important, very important. Just has Hans ...

7 Honest Injun, guys. Kofi promised me thiiiiisssssss much.

8 "So I'm in Ahmadinejad's office and I whip out my metaphorical 44s and I say in my famous Clint Eastwood voice: I know what you're thinking. Did he issue six sternly worded letters or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as the IAEA is part of the UN, the most prolific writer of sternly worded letters in the world, and would instantly swamp your desk, your paper shredder and your recycling bins, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? That's when Ahamdinejad conceded defeat and promised that Iran's nuclear program would only be used for civilian use. Then he had to excuse himself to take an urgent phone call about a new Russian-built rocket motor, or something like that."

9 "O.K. I had a speech all prepared, but I can't find it anywhere. Has any one seen it? It was in a bright yellow folder about this big. I know it's here somewhere. But I'll be damned if I can find it."

10 Hizb ut-Tahir

11 "I once found some sarin and mustard shells thiiis big. Regardless, there's no WMD in Iraq!"

12 An IAEA official threatens Iran to ceize and desist or face his two six-shooters.

13 Okay Iran, You get one (gross) more chances to 'fess up about your nuclear ambitions!

14 ...I wrote a paragraph this long condemning Iran's Nuclear ambitions, it was very stern; I hear the Mullah's shook with fear at the very reading of my letter, Yessiree it won't be long now before they pack up their nuclear reactor, and I have another nastygran prepared in the event they did not heed my last one.

15 In my left hand I have top grade Iranian skunk weed and in my right the lesser Iraqi variety...now take a toke on each and compare.

16 I swear it's this big. No, no, no, not that, but the fish I caught while visiting the nuclear facilites in Iran. That warm water sure grows em.

17 I left off the end part. "I have to have something to do when I'm supposed to be examining the nuclear facilities.

18 Program on the emergence of civilization. "14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind. 13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa. None from the sub-Saharan African continent. " Favor. And disfavor. They point out AfricansÂ’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization. The roots of racism are not of this earth. Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals. The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone. AIDS in Africa. Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning. Heirarchical order, from top to bottom: 1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god" 2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management 3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere Terrestrial management/positioning: 4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds 5. Romans - The seamless transition between Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar may be a clue alluding to a partnership. 6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality 7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups. Movies foreshadowing catastrophy 1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake. Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this." This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere. 20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material. An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; homage, tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting. I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt. They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help. The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial. I offer an example of historical proportions::: People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union". Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority. Unions serve to empower. Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an environment where there are fewer hurdles. Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes. Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean. The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america. The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class. Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents. Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they decided who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation. The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire. Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization. Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected. Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people. Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path. Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jewsus Christ. I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust. Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles. What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church??? If it is their sinister motives thatÂ’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all? Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings. Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor. The Jew leaders were granted the right to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite's methodology. Jews were ostracised for a reason. Jewsus Christ is a religious figure of evil. He teaches of a begnign, forgiving god when quite the opposite is true. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god. And now they do it to disfavored people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them. Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Asian representation is instead selected by the thrones. Budda was the Asian's Jewsus Christ::: bad for the people. "They came up at the same time for a reason." Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect." "You'll see lots of nuns where you're going:::hell!!!" St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures. Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets. The advent of the modern Christmas was a brilliant move. It creates a vested interest among those who would prefer the Church of Evil be destroyed:::: As goes the Catholic Church so goes the majority of annual retail sales. The similarity between the names "Santa" and "Satan" is no coincidence. Retribution for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the Korean War got the disfavored United States into this socially depraved environment in the latter 20th century because we attacked an antient, revered peoples. Our continued presence keeps us in trouble. When the disfavored americans attack the wrong people again, as they suggested they will, in Korea and elsewhere, they will pay dearly. All peoples are ranked in terms of favor and disfavor. And when the disfavored abuse those above them, there is hell to pay. All the groups mentioned throughout are necessary to justify the will of the managing species. They have a strategy, devise a plan yet need a way to implement it, and without these groups the managing species would be exposed in the course of executing strategy. So, based upon their rank they are assigned goals to accomplish and are rewarded with favors.

19 nice doctorate thesis on "how to ramble on like an idiot" grandpa, I think you've proven it. Someone please clean up the "Barking Moonbat" feces on this thread, you can delete my response too.

20 Has anybody reported missing any slack-jawed senile old cooters from the insane asylum? If so, I know where he is.

21 Is that you, Greg?

22 That does it, grandpa! Bigot. Spit! El Baridei is quoted as saying, "Hey, Jew, I'm talking to Jew over there. I want Jew and Jew and Jew. Yes, sir, I need Jew and Jew and Jew too. All the Jews over there on the right, all the Jews here to my left, I need all of you. Come on, let's show that Iranian President Al-Jerko how a real WMD investigative committee operates now that I finally have you super intelligent people with me."

23 E=M(GSB)squared where: E= Entropy M= Mohammed GSB= Grandpa stole bets Pushing M close to GSB results in a critical mass that would cause a Japanese to say, "Horry shit, Joe, where you put Hiroshima? You rika josan? You rika beiru? OK Joe I can fix. She wear Santa clothes and give you biiiggg peace prize; cheap too.... Sigh: where do we get such men?

24 "I would like to reiterate that the fact that the noses of the Iranian scientists involved in their nuclear program are THIS FRIGGIN' big has nothing to do with genetic changes due to radioactive materials. Look at me. 30 years in the nuclear field and I'm as fit as a 17 year old Palestinian stone thrower. Don't mind the hair loss and the eye glasses. I think it's because W is having the CIA slip some slow acting aging virus in my pork jerky."

25 "So you see? My right hand knew not what my left hand doeth for some time now."

26 "Once Israel makes peace with the Palestinians by giving up the West Bank to those very peace loving Arabs, this is how wide Israel's new border will be---very defensible."

27 "I have seen the Iranians' facilities, and their spent fuel rods are this big. What, why must you always laugh when I say that?"

28 Mohammad ElBaradei tries out for Footy Umpire....

29 Dear Vinnie: I have to put the [dot] in my URL because MuNu thinks I have questionable content and rejects my comments. As a matter of fact, I can't use my URL at any MuNu site.

30 What brown skin folk we toasting death of today???? Simple, simpleton. The killers who for racial and religious reasons slaughter innocent people. We gladly celebrate their deaths.

31 Grandpa stole bets: You are sick.

1 The FCLU will be making a statement demanding their immediate release.

2 Are you sure it was an Islamist network, and not a disadvantaged,poverty stricken youths network?

3 dissafected yutes.

4 If found guilty. They may get as much as 30 days detention at home.

5 Agent Smith says to send them to Jester Maximus or Improbulus Greyrooster's house.

6 Sure, send 'em to me. I've got a nice place downstairs all ready for them.

7 I don't want them...I've just tidied up.

8 just goes to show that you cannot cover your a$$ and your face at the same time

9 These news are all wrong . it has no fact in itself if you say democrasy then why you dont admit islamic networks to do their works. Please dont forget that there is lots of another networks in the world but no one say nothing!!!!