Pressuring the Press:
The Media Boycotts Kerry

Democrats — By on September 21, 2004 at 9:27 am

I ‘



  • Mr. Moderate

    The major media is a hack job across the board. Throw up any combination of alphabet soup–CBS,NBC,CNN, FOXNEWS, et cetera– and its the same crap on a different channel. It’s very frustrating to watch the American people think they are getting informed on current events when they are at best being informed about nonsense and at worse being disinformed about what is going on in the world.

  • Mr. Moderate

    The major media is a hack job across the board. Throw up any combination of alphabet soup–CBS,NBC,CNN, FOXNEWS, et cetera– and its the same crap on a different channel. It’s very frustrating to watch the American people think they are getting informed on current events when they are at best being informed about nonsense and at worse being disinformed about what is going on in the world.

  • Dave S.

    Joe, Let’s be fair here. Sen. Kerry DID schedule a press conference- BEFORE he decided to cancel it.

  • Dave S.

    Joe, Let’s be fair here. Sen. Kerry DID schedule a press conference- BEFORE he decided to cancel it.

  • Kerry SD

    I think Kerry gets more than his fair share of media attention. About that anti-Bush CBS hoax thing… Isn’t even that Kerry attention. Can you say “bias enough to make up for several press conferences”. Besides, press conferences are a candidates way of controlling the media: “ya’ll come, I’m going to make news”
    Sign me: not to worried about Kerry’s day in the sun . . .

  • Kerry SD

    I think Kerry gets more than his fair share of media attention. About that anti-Bush CBS hoax thing… Isn’t even that Kerry attention. Can you say “bias enough to make up for several press conferences”. Besides, press conferences are a candidates way of controlling the media: “ya’ll come, I’m going to make news”
    Sign me: not to worried about Kerry’s day in the sun . . .

  • Kevin W

    It’s because of the HMO’s.
    They have said that they refuse to cover whiplash treatments suffered by reporters at Kerry’s press conferences.
    Socialize medicine now!!! Let Kerry be heard!!!

  • Kevin W

    It’s because of the HMO’s.
    They have said that they refuse to cover whiplash treatments suffered by reporters at Kerry’s press conferences.
    Socialize medicine now!!! Let Kerry be heard!!!

  • http://dmobley.blogspot.com/2004/09/kerry-press-conferences.html A Physicist’s Perspective

    Kerry press conferences

    Of course, as I pointed out before, if Kerry did hold a press conference, something like THIS might happen.

  • http://dmobley.blogspot.com/2004/09/kerry-press-conferences.html A Physicist’s Perspective

    Kerry press conferences

    Of course, as I pointed out before, if Kerry did hold a press conference, something like THIS might happen.

  • http://www.mediaculpa.com/ Ed Jordan

    Bulletin: Fox News reports that Kerry will hold a news conference shortly.
    Will any reporter have the opportunity or the courage to ask him about Christmas in Cambodia 1968?

  • http://www.mediaculpa.com Ed Jordan

    Bulletin: Fox News reports that Kerry will hold a news conference shortly.
    Will any reporter have the opportunity or the courage to ask him about Christmas in Cambodia 1968?

  • George

    Mr Moderate:
    You and I don’t agree on much, but I can’t agree with you more about television news. Thank heaven one can turn it off. I think if I had to listen to one more minute about Scott whatever-his-name-is who may or may not have murdered his wife, I’d be willing to confess to having hidden Saddam’s WMD myself just to get solitary confinement.
    By the way, I enjoy the irony in your web moniker…

  • George

    Mr Moderate:
    You and I don’t agree on much, but I can’t agree with you more about television news. Thank heaven one can turn it off. I think if I had to listen to one more minute about Scott whatever-his-name-is who may or may not have murdered his wife, I’d be willing to confess to having hidden Saddam’s WMD myself just to get solitary confinement.
    By the way, I enjoy the irony in your web moniker…

  • John

    Well, Kerry did hold a press conference today, and IMHO I thought he did a very good job. Kerry’s press conference lasted a great deal longer than any of President Bush’s, on the very rare occasions that he has held one; and Kerry actually took spontaneous questions, not the prepared ones of the rare Bush press conferences.
    In my opinion, Kerry delivered his best speech to-date at NYU yesterday, and backed it up today with his direct answers to tough questions from the press, who tried to drill him with the usual Bush campaign rhetoric of Kerry’s flip-flopping on issues, in particular, Bush’s preemptive, personal war in Iraq. Kerry smartly answered that he supported the Iraq war under the pretenses that a true international coalition would be assembled, that weapons inspectors would be able to complete their inspections for WMD, and that war would not be waged unless the first two conditions were met and that war was the absolute last resort after all other options had been exhausted, including having a comprehensive plan for peace that was based on international participation, and not going to war unilaterally. He reiterated that Bush and Cheney continue to work the campaign circuit spouting fantasies about how Iraq is on track for success and democracy, when all evidence and reports say the opposite. And, true to form, today Bush used the word “democracy” to describe the current governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which is an outright lie, of course. Democracy, by definition, means that free national elections have been held, and of course this has not happened in Iraq, nor has it happened in Afghanistan, where all but Kabul is currently under the control of tribal warlords. No longer surprisingly, the CNN correspondent covering Bush’s U.N. speech today also parroted Bush’s untruthful phrase, “…the democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    Kerry is right: Bush really is living in a fantasy world, unwilling or unable to face reality. We need new leadership, not an administration that will do anything to hold power, including spreading wedge issues throughout our churches as the election approaches.

  • John

    Well, Kerry did hold a press conference today, and IMHO I thought he did a very good job. Kerry’s press conference lasted a great deal longer than any of President Bush’s, on the very rare occasions that he has held one; and Kerry actually took spontaneous questions, not the prepared ones of the rare Bush press conferences.
    In my opinion, Kerry delivered his best speech to-date at NYU yesterday, and backed it up today with his direct answers to tough questions from the press, who tried to drill him with the usual Bush campaign rhetoric of Kerry’s flip-flopping on issues, in particular, Bush’s preemptive, personal war in Iraq. Kerry smartly answered that he supported the Iraq war under the pretenses that a true international coalition would be assembled, that weapons inspectors would be able to complete their inspections for WMD, and that war would not be waged unless the first two conditions were met and that war was the absolute last resort after all other options had been exhausted, including having a comprehensive plan for peace that was based on international participation, and not going to war unilaterally. He reiterated that Bush and Cheney continue to work the campaign circuit spouting fantasies about how Iraq is on track for success and democracy, when all evidence and reports say the opposite. And, true to form, today Bush used the word “democracy” to describe the current governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which is an outright lie, of course. Democracy, by definition, means that free national elections have been held, and of course this has not happened in Iraq, nor has it happened in Afghanistan, where all but Kabul is currently under the control of tribal warlords. No longer surprisingly, the CNN correspondent covering Bush’s U.N. speech today also parroted Bush’s untruthful phrase, “…the democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    Kerry is right: Bush really is living in a fantasy world, unwilling or unable to face reality. We need new leadership, not an administration that will do anything to hold power, including spreading wedge issues throughout our churches as the election approaches.

  • David Marcoe

    Well, Kerry did hold a press conference today, and IMHO I thought he did a very good job. Kerry’s press conference lasted a great deal longer than any of President Bush’s, on the very rare occasions that he has held one; and Kerry actually took spontaneous questions, not the prepared ones of the rare Bush press conferences…
    Kerry is right: Bush really is living in a fantasy world, unwilling or unable to face reality. We need new leadership, not an administration that will do anything to hold power, including spreading wedge issues throughout our churches as the election approaches.

    Canned lines, no e-mail address, generic handle, and the same one or two points re-stated over and over again… It’s a troll!!! *Pokes with stick* Can I keep it? Please…
    If you’re going to try and start a flame war, try some better bait…

  • David Marcoe

    Well, Kerry did hold a press conference today, and IMHO I thought he did a very good job. Kerry’s press conference lasted a great deal longer than any of President Bush’s, on the very rare occasions that he has held one; and Kerry actually took spontaneous questions, not the prepared ones of the rare Bush press conferences…
    Kerry is right: Bush really is living in a fantasy world, unwilling or unable to face reality. We need new leadership, not an administration that will do anything to hold power, including spreading wedge issues throughout our churches as the election approaches.

    Canned lines, no e-mail address, generic handle, and the same one or two points re-stated over and over again… It’s a troll!!! *Pokes with stick* Can I keep it? Please…
    If you’re going to try and start a flame war, try some better bait…

  • David Marcoe

    I finally figured it out. You need separate italics tags for each paragraph… Wished I’d figured that out sooner.

  • David Marcoe

    I finally figured it out. You need separate italics tags for each paragraph… Wished I’d figured that out sooner.

  • tommythecat

    cute.

  • tommythecat

    cute.

  • Kevin W

    Strictly speaking, why should we not consider Iraq and Afghanistan democracies?? If Afghanistan isn’t, after holding free elections, what can we say about, say, France or Greece?
    Whatever Afghanistan and Iraq are, they’re a big improvement over the governments they replaced. And, Israel and Turkey excepted, substantially better than any of their neighbors.

  • Kevin W

    Strictly speaking, why should we not consider Iraq and Afghanistan democracies?? If Afghanistan isn’t, after holding free elections, what can we say about, say, France or Greece?
    Whatever Afghanistan and Iraq are, they’re a big improvement over the governments they replaced. And, Israel and Turkey excepted, substantially better than any of their neighbors.

  • Andy

    Iraq will be a democracy, once fair elections are done, but it isn’t one yet. Still, that’s no shame on anyone, since it takes a while to get such things going.

  • Andy

    Iraq will be a democracy, once fair elections are done, but it isn’t one yet. Still, that’s no shame on anyone, since it takes a while to get such things going.

  • tommythecat

    i think you guys are confusing democracy with anarchy.

  • tommythecat

    i think you guys are confusing democracy with anarchy.

  • Kevin W

    And I think you’re confusing totalitarianism with representative government.

  • Kevin W

    And I think you’re confusing totalitarianism with representative government.

  • Anonymous

    you mean iraq and afganistan were totalitarian? of course they were. now they are in anarchy.
    the only lasting change in any society comes from the inside. russia’s fall of communism came from the people in the country. china is openign up because of internal pressures. america’s break from england.

  • Anonymous

    you mean iraq and afganistan were totalitarian? of course they were. now they are in anarchy.
    the only lasting change in any society comes from the inside. russia’s fall of communism came from the people in the country. china is openign up because of internal pressures. america’s break from england.

  • David Marcoe

    Which is what we are trying to foster. And many Iraqis do care about the fate of their country. They want change.

  • David Marcoe

    Which is what we are trying to foster. And many Iraqis do care about the fate of their country. They want change.

  • Anonymous

    trying is the right word, not succeeding. trying didn’t work for vietnam either.
    who really likes the police? that is what americans are now: the world police force. it is still amerians killing iraqi civilians, not matter whether you call them insurgents or not. remember, every household in iraq is allowed an ak-47. if i saw people on my street routinely gunned down i’d fight back too.

  • Anonymous

    trying is the right word, not succeeding. trying didn’t work for vietnam either.
    who really likes the police? that is what americans are now: the world police force. it is still amerians killing iraqi civilians, not matter whether you call them insurgents or not. remember, every household in iraq is allowed an ak-47. if i saw people on my street routinely gunned down i’d fight back too.

  • David Marcoe

    Ok, what this has to do with my post, I am not quite sure, but I’ll take a whack at it anyway…
    trying is the right word, not succeeding. trying didn’t work for vietnam either.
    Oh, don’t get me started, and you might want to watch your step because I am sure a few Vietnam vets reading this could give you and ear full. But short of it is this: Vietnam was never given a chance to try. The politicians in ‘ol Foggy Bottom micro-managed the war and most of the fighting against the NV and VK was done by Americans for most of the war. By every conventional measure, we were winning, but as insanely, our soldiers weren’t allowed were prevented from winning the hearts and minds of the people they were fighting for and they weren’t allowed to invade the country thet were fighting against. In other words, our leaders snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
    who really likes the police?
    Usually people in need of help.
    that is what americans are now: the world police force.
    You’re right. Europe is to high on itself to pay attention to other people’s plight. Bosnia, Kosovo, Somali, Liberia… Who were the first troops on the scene with aid in those hell holes? All of those places are in the direct sphere of influence of the major European powers, and yet it was a country thosuands of miles farther away that lead the way in assisting.
    And guess what, it was American Secretary of State Colin Powell that finally condemned the actions in the Sudan as genocidel, which resolves the issue under international law and creates the opportunity for further action. Again, Americans taking the first step because others won’t.
    it is still amerians killing iraqi civilians, not matter whether you call them insurgents or not.
    So basically what you’re saying is “don’t confuse with the facts.” Just to make you understand, by defintion, armed insurgents–people carrying weapons and attacking American troops with out provocation–are not civilians. Civilians are people walking around and minding their own business. Those aren’t the people our troops are going after.
    remember, every household in iraq is allowed an ak-47. if i saw people on my street routinely gunned down i’d fight back too.
    Now think about that: If we are trying to be an oppressive and imperialistic force, why the hell would we allow each home to keep military arms? And the statement about being rountinely gunned down is laughable. If that was happening, there would be an outcry of war crimes the likes of which this country has never seen before. And it was cross every television screen, newspaper front page, and blog the world over.
    If you believe to the contrary, then firmly affix your tin foil hat and head for the bunker.
    Why do I pay so much attention to the trolls? I guess it is a curse…

  • David Marcoe

    Ok, what this has to do with my post, I am not quite sure, but I’ll take a whack at it anyway…
    trying is the right word, not succeeding. trying didn’t work for vietnam either.
    Oh, don’t get me started, and you might want to watch your step because I am sure a few Vietnam vets reading this could give you and ear full. But short of it is this: Vietnam was never given a chance to try. The politicians in ‘ol Foggy Bottom micro-managed the war and most of the fighting against the NV and VK was done by Americans for most of the war. By every conventional measure, we were winning, but as insanely, our soldiers weren’t allowed were prevented from winning the hearts and minds of the people they were fighting for and they weren’t allowed to invade the country thet were fighting against. In other words, our leaders snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
    who really likes the police?
    Usually people in need of help.
    that is what americans are now: the world police force.
    You’re right. Europe is to high on itself to pay attention to other people’s plight. Bosnia, Kosovo, Somali, Liberia… Who were the first troops on the scene with aid in those hell holes? All of those places are in the direct sphere of influence of the major European powers, and yet it was a country thosuands of miles farther away that lead the way in assisting.
    And guess what, it was American Secretary of State Colin Powell that finally condemned the actions in the Sudan as genocidel, which resolves the issue under international law and creates the opportunity for further action. Again, Americans taking the first step because others won’t.
    it is still amerians killing iraqi civilians, not matter whether you call them insurgents or not.
    So basically what you’re saying is “don’t confuse with the facts.” Just to make you understand, by defintion, armed insurgents–people carrying weapons and attacking American troops with out provocation–are not civilians. Civilians are people walking around and minding their own business. Those aren’t the people our troops are going after.
    remember, every household in iraq is allowed an ak-47. if i saw people on my street routinely gunned down i’d fight back too.
    Now think about that: If we are trying to be an oppressive and imperialistic force, why the hell would we allow each home to keep military arms? And the statement about being rountinely gunned down is laughable. If that was happening, there would be an outcry of war crimes the likes of which this country has never seen before. And it was cross every television screen, newspaper front page, and blog the world over.
    If you believe to the contrary, then firmly affix your tin foil hat and head for the bunker.
    Why do I pay so much attention to the trolls? I guess it is a curse…

  • David Marcoe

    Edit/Correction: “Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

  • David Marcoe

    Edit/Correction: “Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

  • Anonymous

    ok, so if americans are a benign police force why aren’t we helping the suddan, where the greatest genocide of the last half century is taking place?
    or, is it because they don’t have any ‘interests’ the US is interested in?
    i’m not a troll, i am asking honest questions.

  • Anonymous

    ok, so if americans are a benign police force why aren’t we helping the suddan, where the greatest genocide of the last half century is taking place?
    or, is it because they don’t have any ‘interests’ the US is interested in?
    i’m not a troll, i am asking honest questions.

  • John

    David Marcoe,
    I am also not a troll, but I don’t feel secure on this website to post my personal email address, if you don’t mind. I am happy to debate any arguments I put forth.
    Here is a link to my favorite editorial cartoonist, David Horsey, who, more often than not, represents my personal feelings on current events and national politics :
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/

  • John

    David Marcoe,
    I am also not a troll, but I don’t feel secure on this website to post my personal email address, if you don’t mind. I am happy to debate any arguments I put forth.
    Here is a link to my favorite editorial cartoonist, David Horsey, who, more often than not, represents my personal feelings on current events and national politics :
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/

  • David Marcoe

    ok, so if americans are a benign police force why aren’t we helping the suddan, where the greatest genocide of the last half century is taking place?
    or, is it because they don’t have any ‘interests’ the US is interested in?

    Because we don’t have enough troops. We’re having to commence the largest movement of troops since WWII by withdrawing them from bases in Europe to relive the pressure. Right now we already have National Guard and Reserve units in Iraq. The Marine Corps is having to severely cut training time with new Marines to get them out in to the field.
    And yes, we are more likely to intervene in areas that intersect with our interests. First and foremost our government is cocerned with its own citizens. To a great extent, it is the responsibility of the peoples of the world to resolve their own issues as well. And yet we are called on time and time again we are given an ear full by the world’s nationas to use our influence for the greater good. And then when we do go at it with gusto, we get slandered for being “the world’s police” and not minding our own business. Then when we back off, people like you then criticize us for not intervening. PICK ONE!
    It is a case of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”
    i’m not a troll, i am asking honest questions.
    If you aren’t a troll, then post a name that we can all indentify you by. You don’t have to post your e-mail.
    John:
    I am also not a troll, but I don’t feel secure on this website to post my personal email address, if you don’t mind. I am happy to debate any arguments I put forth.
    Perfectly reasonable. There are plenty of people who post here that don’t post their e-mails, so you’re in good company. But you sound like a troll: You wrote a lengthly post that made only about two points and was filled with generalities and few supports. You might want to work on that.
    Here is what I have to say about Iraq: We argue the merits of the WMD threat, but on one can deny that Saddam wanted them and hadn’t quit pursuing them. And his sons were nuttier than he was. Iraq presented a long term threat, any way you cut it. Whether there were WMDs there before we invaded is also up for grabs, but Saddam had lots of time to move them out of the country and we have only been looking in Iraq, which contrary to popular opinion, we still have yet to completely search. When a weapon can fit in a coke can and can, at minimum, be hidden anywhere in a piece of territory the size of California, we might never find it.
    But Iraq represents something far bigger than that and the Bush administration has never vocalized this, which seems like a nagging habit on other issues as well. But what Iraq represents in an opportunity to strike at the root cause of Islamo-Fascism. Iraq is the most likely Islamic country where democracy might take root: You have a population that is largley more moderate than most other Islamic countries, with a substantial Christian minority that, for the most part, lives peaceably with their Muslim neighbors. It could one day act as a counter-balance to the autocratic and dictitorial regimes in the region.
    But why didn’t we target countries more directly responsible for terrorism? Because we couldn’t have occupied after attacking. Saudi Arabia, the favored target by most, has a far more fundamentalist population than Iraq, and the only reason that we have been able to keep a cap on that is that they have a government pragmatic and moderate enough to deal with the West. They aren’t ideal people to deal with, but the factions that could replace them on far worse. If we were to occupy Saudi Arabia, or any other nation that contributed to the terrorism–Iran being naother likely choice–we would have deal with populations that were far more hostile.
    Iraq has the potential to become and floursihing and free country. Whether or not it actually will is still in question, but if we are are going to win the WoT, we are going to have to strike at the terrorists’ ideological heart, not just bust a few heads together and call it a day.

  • David Marcoe

    ok, so if americans are a benign police force why aren’t we helping the suddan, where the greatest genocide of the last half century is taking place?
    or, is it because they don’t have any ‘interests’ the US is interested in?

    Because we don’t have enough troops. We’re having to commence the largest movement of troops since WWII by withdrawing them from bases in Europe to relive the pressure. Right now we already have National Guard and Reserve units in Iraq. The Marine Corps is having to severely cut training time with new Marines to get them out in to the field.
    And yes, we are more likely to intervene in areas that intersect with our interests. First and foremost our government is cocerned with its own citizens. To a great extent, it is the responsibility of the peoples of the world to resolve their own issues as well. And yet we are called on time and time again we are given an ear full by the world’s nationas to use our influence for the greater good. And then when we do go at it with gusto, we get slandered for being “the world’s police” and not minding our own business. Then when we back off, people like you then criticize us for not intervening. PICK ONE!
    It is a case of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”
    i’m not a troll, i am asking honest questions.
    If you aren’t a troll, then post a name that we can all indentify you by. You don’t have to post your e-mail.
    John:
    I am also not a troll, but I don’t feel secure on this website to post my personal email address, if you don’t mind. I am happy to debate any arguments I put forth.
    Perfectly reasonable. There are plenty of people who post here that don’t post their e-mails, so you’re in good company. But you sound like a troll: You wrote a lengthly post that made only about two points and was filled with generalities and few supports. You might want to work on that.
    Here is what I have to say about Iraq: We argue the merits of the WMD threat, but on one can deny that Saddam wanted them and hadn’t quit pursuing them. And his sons were nuttier than he was. Iraq presented a long term threat, any way you cut it. Whether there were WMDs there before we invaded is also up for grabs, but Saddam had lots of time to move them out of the country and we have only been looking in Iraq, which contrary to popular opinion, we still have yet to completely search. When a weapon can fit in a coke can and can, at minimum, be hidden anywhere in a piece of territory the size of California, we might never find it.
    But Iraq represents something far bigger than that and the Bush administration has never vocalized this, which seems like a nagging habit on other issues as well. But what Iraq represents in an opportunity to strike at the root cause of Islamo-Fascism. Iraq is the most likely Islamic country where democracy might take root: You have a population that is largley more moderate than most other Islamic countries, with a substantial Christian minority that, for the most part, lives peaceably with their Muslim neighbors. It could one day act as a counter-balance to the autocratic and dictitorial regimes in the region.
    But why didn’t we target countries more directly responsible for terrorism? Because we couldn’t have occupied after attacking. Saudi Arabia, the favored target by most, has a far more fundamentalist population than Iraq, and the only reason that we have been able to keep a cap on that is that they have a government pragmatic and moderate enough to deal with the West. They aren’t ideal people to deal with, but the factions that could replace them on far worse. If we were to occupy Saudi Arabia, or any other nation that contributed to the terrorism–Iran being naother likely choice–we would have deal with populations that were far more hostile.
    Iraq has the potential to become and floursihing and free country. Whether or not it actually will is still in question, but if we are are going to win the WoT, we are going to have to strike at the terrorists’ ideological heart, not just bust a few heads together and call it a day.

  • John

    David Marcoe,
    Ok, fair enough, now here is my initial response:
    I loathe the idea that the far-fringe leaders of my country manipulated the tragedy of 911 into an opportunity to carry out a pre-conceived agenda (Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, 1993) to finish conquering Iraq by synthesizing false pretenses (WMD, active nuclear weapons program, long-range missiles, etc.) and presenting this to the world as proof that it was urgent that we attack Iraq immediately, with or without the help of our long-standing allies, and before Han Blix’s WMD inspections team could finish their assessment. Now, in retrospect, we all know the irrefutable truth: the WMD argument was a sham. Now it’s clear that years of inspections and sanctions had turned Saddam Hussein into nothing more than a tin-pot dictator, a paper tiger, a toothless lion, regardless of his megalomania. He simply wasn’t the threat Colin Powell made him out to be at the U.N., and I sincerely believe in my heart that he knew it, and the Bush Administration knew it, too. We were going to go to war come hell or high water. Coincidentally, our country’s 2002 elections were right around the corner when the war drums started beating, remember? Coincidence? I think not.
    You say, “But why didn’t we target countries more directly responsible for terrorism? Because we couldn’t have occupied after attacking.”
    That is one of the more bizarre rationalizations for the Iraq war that I have heard. Don’t attack those responsible because occupation is easier if you attack someone else not responsible? Are you kidding me?
    I loathe the way the Bush Administration keeps changing the rationale for conquering Iraq, because it only deflects the truth: we were deceived about the original reasons for going to war. Don’t change the subject and tell me that we’re better off with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell. (Am I better off? Not that I can tell. If he suffered from megalomania (which he did/does), but had no ability to harm me, then he wasn’t a threat to me, was he? Anymore than untold others around the world who are delusional, right?) Compared to what Iraq has become today, at least Saddam Hussein was in a box, contained. Now, by all new accounts, Iraq has, indeed been turned into a breeding ground for terrorists and Islamic mercenaries. Hussein’s Stalinist (no fascist) regime has been dismantled, and border-crossing terrorists and mercenaries have filled the vacuum, blowing up and shooting more of our sitting-ducks sons and daughters every day. And you call this an improvement? No objective strategic analyst in the entire world is saying that Iraq has any chance anytime in the coming years to become truly democratic. But George Bush keeps spouting this nonsense every day in his full-time job in marketing for the RNC (by the way, when does he ever actually do the job of being President?). “If I say it enough, then it will be so.” Most strategic analysts are predicting ongoing guerilla warfare so long as we remain, or possibly all-out civil war if we retreat. This is a mess of Vietnam proportions, yes sir. I await your response.

  • John

    David Marcoe,
    Ok, fair enough, now here is my initial response:
    I loathe the idea that the far-fringe leaders of my country manipulated the tragedy of 911 into an opportunity to carry out a pre-conceived agenda (Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, 1993) to finish conquering Iraq by synthesizing false pretenses (WMD, active nuclear weapons program, long-range missiles, etc.) and presenting this to the world as proof that it was urgent that we attack Iraq immediately, with or without the help of our long-standing allies, and before Han Blix’s WMD inspections team could finish their assessment. Now, in retrospect, we all know the irrefutable truth: the WMD argument was a sham. Now it’s clear that years of inspections and sanctions had turned Saddam Hussein into nothing more than a tin-pot dictator, a paper tiger, a toothless lion, regardless of his megalomania. He simply wasn’t the threat Colin Powell made him out to be at the U.N., and I sincerely believe in my heart that he knew it, and the Bush Administration knew it, too. We were going to go to war come hell or high water. Coincidentally, our country’s 2002 elections were right around the corner when the war drums started beating, remember? Coincidence? I think not.
    You say, “But why didn’t we target countries more directly responsible for terrorism? Because we couldn’t have occupied after attacking.”
    That is one of the more bizarre rationalizations for the Iraq war that I have heard. Don’t attack those responsible because occupation is easier if you attack someone else not responsible? Are you kidding me?
    I loathe the way the Bush Administration keeps changing the rationale for conquering Iraq, because it only deflects the truth: we were deceived about the original reasons for going to war. Don’t change the subject and tell me that we’re better off with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell. (Am I better off? Not that I can tell. If he suffered from megalomania (which he did/does), but had no ability to harm me, then he wasn’t a threat to me, was he? Anymore than untold others around the world who are delusional, right?) Compared to what Iraq has become today, at least Saddam Hussein was in a box, contained. Now, by all new accounts, Iraq has, indeed been turned into a breeding ground for terrorists and Islamic mercenaries. Hussein’s Stalinist (no fascist) regime has been dismantled, and border-crossing terrorists and mercenaries have filled the vacuum, blowing up and shooting more of our sitting-ducks sons and daughters every day. And you call this an improvement? No objective strategic analyst in the entire world is saying that Iraq has any chance anytime in the coming years to become truly democratic. But George Bush keeps spouting this nonsense every day in his full-time job in marketing for the RNC (by the way, when does he ever actually do the job of being President?). “If I say it enough, then it will be so.” Most strategic analysts are predicting ongoing guerilla warfare so long as we remain, or possibly all-out civil war if we retreat. This is a mess of Vietnam proportions, yes sir. I await your response.

  • http://www.sonafide.com/ Drina

    May I assume Bush’s flip flops are of no consequence to you?

  • http://www.sonafide.com Drina

    May I assume Bush’s flip flops are of no consequence to you?

  • Kevin W

    Well, let me help you there, John. I see you’ve read almost verbatim from the DNC press releases going out of late.
    Why do we need one reason to go into Iraq? I can think of a dozen. Fact is, the majority of Americans still support this war. Do you think you are the only one with doubts? That we on the right aren’t anxious? Of course we have them, and we are.
    We have a challenge here. You may wish to call it a “mess”, if you like, but the question remains: what does the Left plan to do about the Middle East? We know what the right wants to do–we want to bring a functioning democracy to Iraq, with a vibrant economy, that has replaced a totalitarian regime that has threatened its neighbors for the last fifty years. Saddam Hussein a paper tiger? Tens of thousands of Kurds, hundreds of thousands of Kuwaitis, and millions of Iranians beg to differ, along with some 300,000 of his own countrymen scattered about it shallow graves.
    What is your plan. Disengagement? Hope the problem goes away? Or maybe you like Kerry’s idea: surrender, bring the troops home, and let the United Nations have another go. The UN has done such a superb job in sub-Saharan Africa and in Yugoslavia, hell, why not let them handle the Middle East too?
    The Democrats think they can win this election by making it about Iraq. In fact, that’s all they can do. It’s hard to argue with 5.4% unemployment and an economy that has expanded in all but one of the quarters of GWB’s presidency. They want to make it a referendum on Iraq.
    Fair enough. We’ll see on November 2 whether Americans are resolute, and will finish the job. Or if we’ll cut and run.

  • Kevin W

    Well, let me help you there, John. I see you’ve read almost verbatim from the DNC press releases going out of late.
    Why do we need one reason to go into Iraq? I can think of a dozen. Fact is, the majority of Americans still support this war. Do you think you are the only one with doubts? That we on the right aren’t anxious? Of course we have them, and we are.
    We have a challenge here. You may wish to call it a “mess”, if you like, but the question remains: what does the Left plan to do about the Middle East? We know what the right wants to do–we want to bring a functioning democracy to Iraq, with a vibrant economy, that has replaced a totalitarian regime that has threatened its neighbors for the last fifty years. Saddam Hussein a paper tiger? Tens of thousands of Kurds, hundreds of thousands of Kuwaitis, and millions of Iranians beg to differ, along with some 300,000 of his own countrymen scattered about it shallow graves.
    What is your plan. Disengagement? Hope the problem goes away? Or maybe you like Kerry’s idea: surrender, bring the troops home, and let the United Nations have another go. The UN has done such a superb job in sub-Saharan Africa and in Yugoslavia, hell, why not let them handle the Middle East too?
    The Democrats think they can win this election by making it about Iraq. In fact, that’s all they can do. It’s hard to argue with 5.4% unemployment and an economy that has expanded in all but one of the quarters of GWB’s presidency. They want to make it a referendum on Iraq.
    Fair enough. We’ll see on November 2 whether Americans are resolute, and will finish the job. Or if we’ll cut and run.

  • tommythecat

    it isn’t that black and white, you are with us or against us kind of totalitarian talk, to use your own words.
    there are other options other than bush’s path. kerry can’t leave iraq, and he has said so. but, he is proposing doing this differently than bush’s arrogant swagger. we are quickly losing world respect, and soon the dollar will reflect that.

  • tommythecat

    it isn’t that black and white, you are with us or against us kind of totalitarian talk, to use your own words.
    there are other options other than bush’s path. kerry can’t leave iraq, and he has said so. but, he is proposing doing this differently than bush’s arrogant swagger. we are quickly losing world respect, and soon the dollar will reflect that.

  • Kevin W

    What day is it today? Wednesday? You’re right–Kerry said today he will stay the course, but with international help. Yesterday he was on record as saying he would have the troops home in a year. Saturday it was sometime during his first term. Last Thursday it would be to finish the job we started, but with more troops, not less.
    I’d rather see a guy with a swagger, than a drunkard who staggers in different directions as the wind blows.

  • Kevin W

    What day is it today? Wednesday? You’re right–Kerry said today he will stay the course, but with international help. Yesterday he was on record as saying he would have the troops home in a year. Saturday it was sometime during his first term. Last Thursday it would be to finish the job we started, but with more troops, not less.
    I’d rather see a guy with a swagger, than a drunkard who staggers in different directions as the wind blows.

  • Anonymous

    Look, Kevin W.,
    Kerry, to his credit, has finally stopped pandering to the so-called “undecided” vote on Iraq, as he has for months. He has finally accepted the fact that, at this point, the only undecided voters likely to vote are people that self-identify as “undecided”, when in fact they know very well whom they intend to vote for. They just like to play the game with pollsters, because it makes them feel important – they like to hear themselves talk.
    Kerry finally made a clear distinction from the Bush Administration with respect to the war in Iraq with his NYU speech. He elaborated on this theme yesterday at his press conference. The voters now have a clear choice: Stay the course with Bush, no matter how futile this course may be, no matter how many more Americans die (for absolutely nothing – all the experts say, NO CHANCE FOR DEMOCRACY); OR vote for Kerry, to, yes, WITHDRAW, RETREAT, EVACUATE, DISENGAGE, CUT-AND-RUN, whatever you want to call it, to CUT OUR LOSSES. YES, JUST LIKE VIETNAM. It’s as simple as that. If you believe this is an unwinnable, neverending, guerilla war that was conjured up under false pretenses, as I do, then vote for Kerry. If you think that every American killed or maimed in Iraq is an unconscionable moral tragedy; AND if you think that every Iraqi, civilian, insurgent, homeland defender, child of our same, holy God, killed or maimed, burned, etc., is also an unconscionable moral tragedy, then vote for Kerry. For me, this isn’t about macho, or “these colors don’t run” (OF COURSE THEY DO – THEY HAVE THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY if you ever bothered learning it, you incredibly ignorant, fellow Americans). Kerry, to me, is the one who has the stones to admit when something is very, very wrong, like he did when he came back from the Vietnam War, a war that he actually volunteered to serve in, and clearly did so with honor. Not like Cheney (five deferments) or Ashcroft (SEVEN ! deferments) or Dubya (AWOL in Alabama).
    I await your response.

  • Anonymous

    Look, Kevin W.,
    Kerry, to his credit, has finally stopped pandering to the so-called “undecided” vote on Iraq, as he has for months. He has finally accepted the fact that, at this point, the only undecided voters likely to vote are people that self-identify as “undecided”, when in fact they know very well whom they intend to vote for. They just like to play the game with pollsters, because it makes them feel important – they like to hear themselves talk.
    Kerry finally made a clear distinction from the Bush Administration with respect to the war in Iraq with his NYU speech. He elaborated on this theme yesterday at his press conference. The voters now have a clear choice: Stay the course with Bush, no matter how futile this course may be, no matter how many more Americans die (for absolutely nothing – all the experts say, NO CHANCE FOR DEMOCRACY); OR vote for Kerry, to, yes, WITHDRAW, RETREAT, EVACUATE, DISENGAGE, CUT-AND-RUN, whatever you want to call it, to CUT OUR LOSSES. YES, JUST LIKE VIETNAM. It’s as simple as that. If you believe this is an unwinnable, neverending, guerilla war that was conjured up under false pretenses, as I do, then vote for Kerry. If you think that every American killed or maimed in Iraq is an unconscionable moral tragedy; AND if you think that every Iraqi, civilian, insurgent, homeland defender, child of our same, holy God, killed or maimed, burned, etc., is also an unconscionable moral tragedy, then vote for Kerry. For me, this isn’t about macho, or “these colors don’t run” (OF COURSE THEY DO – THEY HAVE THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY if you ever bothered learning it, you incredibly ignorant, fellow Americans). Kerry, to me, is the one who has the stones to admit when something is very, very wrong, like he did when he came back from the Vietnam War, a war that he actually volunteered to serve in, and clearly did so with honor. Not like Cheney (five deferments) or Ashcroft (SEVEN ! deferments) or Dubya (AWOL in Alabama).
    I await your response.

  • David Marcoe

    John, I will more than happy to respond, but as you can see on the time stamp of this post, it is early in the AM and I am tired, so I will get around to answering later today. Good night.

  • David Marcoe

    John, I will more than happy to respond, but as you can see on the time stamp of this post, it is early in the AM and I am tired, so I will get around to answering later today. Good night.

  • Kevin W

    I see. So now that Kerry has stopped “pandering”, that is principled leadership? That would mean that he won the Democratic nomination under false pretenses, wouldn’t it? After all, he attacked Dean for pandering to the anti-war Left.
    But, in fact, you have been rolled again. Here is John Edwards on Larry King, last night, saying that Kerry will build a multinational force to rebuild Iraq. Not cutting and running. Not surrendering. Not withdrawing. Now, maybe he’s lying, and the first act of the Kerry presidency will be to declare victory and come home. But, as usual, another day passes, with yet another Kerry position.
    BTW, to say that Bush was AWOL in the TANG is just parroting DNC talking points–you clearly don’t have any idea about the point system in the National Guard. You look kind of stupid when you say that. Bring up the deferments or the strings being pulled to get him in, but he wasn’t AWOL. It’s not surprising that a liberal doesn’t know these things, though–it’s not your fault you were brought up hating the military culture. It’s your parents’ fault.

  • Kevin W

    I see. So now that Kerry has stopped “pandering”, that is principled leadership? That would mean that he won the Democratic nomination under false pretenses, wouldn’t it? After all, he attacked Dean for pandering to the anti-war Left.
    But, in fact, you have been rolled again. Here is John Edwards on Larry King, last night, saying that Kerry will build a multinational force to rebuild Iraq. Not cutting and running. Not surrendering. Not withdrawing. Now, maybe he’s lying, and the first act of the Kerry presidency will be to declare victory and come home. But, as usual, another day passes, with yet another Kerry position.
    BTW, to say that Bush was AWOL in the TANG is just parroting DNC talking points–you clearly don’t have any idea about the point system in the National Guard. You look kind of stupid when you say that. Bring up the deferments or the strings being pulled to get him in, but he wasn’t AWOL. It’s not surprising that a liberal doesn’t know these things, though–it’s not your fault you were brought up hating the military culture. It’s your parents’ fault.

  • http://hap.heydo.com/buy_online/index.html cialis
  • http://hap.heydo.com/buy_online/index.html cialis
  • Larry Lord

    Dedicated to Mike S. :
    CBS memo mea culpa received significantly more media coverage than NYT acknowledgment on WMD
    If media coverage bore any relationship to a story

  • Larry Lord

    Dedicated to Mike S. :
    CBS memo mea culpa received significantly more media coverage than NYT acknowledgment on WMD
    If media coverage bore any relationship to a story

  • John

    Kevin W.,
    I don’t hate military culture, acually I have great respect for the military. I love military history, am a student of the US Civil War, WWI and WWII. What I hate is when I see the military being exploited for political expediency, as is clearly the case in Iraq. This is boy-George’s war of opportunism and appeasement, a gift to his daddy (William F. Buckley, jr. calls it, “Bush’s Little Venture”). Finishing unfinished business, and whipping up patriotic fever to win the Senate for the Republican Party in 2002 to boot. But it’s immoral, and more than sixty thousand of God’s children are dead, including 1041 Americans, with more scheduled to die every day. The Iraqi olympic soccer player said it best, “How can George Bush meet his God with so much blood on his hands?”.
    I grew up during the Vietnam War and fortunately for me, the war ended before I graduated high school. But I had relatives and older siblings of friends who did serve in Vietnam, and invariably, that war had life-changing impacts on them, whether it was psychological or physical. For example, one of my cousins spent years in the “Hanoi Hilton” after being shot-down, and while there, his wife gave up waiting and divorced him.
    More than fifty-thousand Americans died in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands more were wounded or scarred for life, and we killed several million Vietnamese. Yet, thirty years later, if you landed on planet Earth and observed present day Vietnam and the United States of America, you’d never know that these two countries recently fought a bloody war. Today, it’s business as usual between our countries, with free trade and the flow of money and people across borders, amazing, considering Vietnam is still a Communist country. Looking back, the Vietnam War was a complete waste of human life, a bitter, dark period in American history.
    And now, with each passing day, the Iraq War more and more resembles Vietnam. Guerilla warfare. Can’t tell friend from foe. Radical mercenaries flowing across the borders, intent on killing Americans, with no regard to their own lives. Americans, whose mission is to establish security and rebuild infrastructure, instead being magnets for anarchy and bulls-eyes for hooded marksmen. So long as we remain in Iraq, the killings will continue. So long as we continue to bomb and kill those who would kill us, the cycle of violence with continue, as both sides seek to avenge their fallen comrades.
    We need to pull back or pull out, and get a fresh start with an international coalition, which will never happen under Bush. As Kerry says, Bush has zero credibility among world leaders, with a small few exceptions, all of whom are currently fighting for their political lives. Even the Pope openly criticises Bush’s policies in the Middle East. Evangelical protestants, you need to explain why you are coaching President Bush (and you are: Rick Warren and others) to continue down this immoral slippery slope of death and destruction.

  • John

    Kevin W.,
    I don’t hate military culture, acually I have great respect for the military. I love military history, am a student of the US Civil War, WWI and WWII. What I hate is when I see the military being exploited for political expediency, as is clearly the case in Iraq. This is boy-George’s war of opportunism and appeasement, a gift to his daddy (William F. Buckley, jr. calls it, “Bush’s Little Venture”). Finishing unfinished business, and whipping up patriotic fever to win the Senate for the Republican Party in 2002 to boot. But it’s immoral, and more than sixty thousand of God’s children are dead, including 1041 Americans, with more scheduled to die every day. The Iraqi olympic soccer player said it best, “How can George Bush meet his God with so much blood on his hands?”.
    I grew up during the Vietnam War and fortunately for me, the war ended before I graduated high school. But I had relatives and older siblings of friends who did serve in Vietnam, and invariably, that war had life-changing impacts on them, whether it was psychological or physical. For example, one of my cousins spent years in the “Hanoi Hilton” after being shot-down, and while there, his wife gave up waiting and divorced him.
    More than fifty-thousand Americans died in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands more were wounded or scarred for life, and we killed several million Vietnamese. Yet, thirty years later, if you landed on planet Earth and observed present day Vietnam and the United States of America, you’d never know that these two countries recently fought a bloody war. Today, it’s business as usual between our countries, with free trade and the flow of money and people across borders, amazing, considering Vietnam is still a Communist country. Looking back, the Vietnam War was a complete waste of human life, a bitter, dark period in American history.
    And now, with each passing day, the Iraq War more and more resembles Vietnam. Guerilla warfare. Can’t tell friend from foe. Radical mercenaries flowing across the borders, intent on killing Americans, with no regard to their own lives. Americans, whose mission is to establish security and rebuild infrastructure, instead being magnets for anarchy and bulls-eyes for hooded marksmen. So long as we remain in Iraq, the killings will continue. So long as we continue to bomb and kill those who would kill us, the cycle of violence with continue, as both sides seek to avenge their fallen comrades.
    We need to pull back or pull out, and get a fresh start with an international coalition, which will never happen under Bush. As Kerry says, Bush has zero credibility among world leaders, with a small few exceptions, all of whom are currently fighting for their political lives. Even the Pope openly criticises Bush’s policies in the Middle East. Evangelical protestants, you need to explain why you are coaching President Bush (and you are: Rick Warren and others) to continue down this immoral slippery slope of death and destruction.

  • Kevin W

    Hate to be nitpicky, but ain’t that like apples and oranges?
    First of all, there is a tremendous amount of animosity between print and television reporters–newspaper journalists often consider their on-air contemporaries to be a bunch of pretty boys, and unserious journalists. Were I an investigative reporter, I would feel like the Brokaws and the Rathers and, for balance, the Brit Humes don’t do a whole lot of heavy lifting for their paychecks.
    Also, the NYT admission that it should not have printed WMD stories wasn’t really an admission so much as an excoriation of Bush–the Administration and the CIA told us they were there, we believed them, and so we were lied to. Sorry, readers. Not quite the same as saying, a guy came to us with documents which didn’t pass the sniff test even among our own in-house analysts and we went ahead with the story anyway. But what would you have wanted? Dan Rather coming on: “In a breathtaking admission of journalistic impropriety, the New York Times editorial page today acknowledged that they printed Administration sources who claimed there were WMD’s in Iraq. The New York Times now says they shouldn’t have done that. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz” Meanwhile, the rest of America clicks over to Celebrities Uncensored or the Lesbian Wrestling Channel (btw–did you see it last night?)

  • Kevin W

    Hate to be nitpicky, but ain’t that like apples and oranges?
    First of all, there is a tremendous amount of animosity between print and television reporters–newspaper journalists often consider their on-air contemporaries to be a bunch of pretty boys, and unserious journalists. Were I an investigative reporter, I would feel like the Brokaws and the Rathers and, for balance, the Brit Humes don’t do a whole lot of heavy lifting for their paychecks.
    Also, the NYT admission that it should not have printed WMD stories wasn’t really an admission so much as an excoriation of Bush–the Administration and the CIA told us they were there, we believed them, and so we were lied to. Sorry, readers. Not quite the same as saying, a guy came to us with documents which didn’t pass the sniff test even among our own in-house analysts and we went ahead with the story anyway. But what would you have wanted? Dan Rather coming on: “In a breathtaking admission of journalistic impropriety, the New York Times editorial page today acknowledged that they printed Administration sources who claimed there were WMD’s in Iraq. The New York Times now says they shouldn’t have done that. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz” Meanwhile, the rest of America clicks over to Celebrities Uncensored or the Lesbian Wrestling Channel (btw–did you see it last night?)

  • Kevin W

    John:
    You could’ve said the very same about our occupation of Japan or Nazi Germany. In fact, many on the Left AND the Right did say those things–we were squandering resources better spent here, we were permanently garrisoning an Army in Europe and Asia to protect our former enemies against Communism, blah blah blah.
    Is democracy possible in the Middle East? Or is it just the Jews and the Turks who are able to manage it? Is that what you think–that if you’re not Jewish, you shouldn’t be allowed to have freedom?
    For someone who claims to have enormous respect for military culture and history, your knowledge seems to be sorely lacking. 1041 troops. Tragic, yes. I’ve lost two friends over there. I also lost two friends on 9/11. How many did we lose at Antietam? Chancellorsville? Belleau Wood? Pearl Harbor? Bastogne? Far as wars go, this one seems pretty cheap.
    Out of curiosity, where did you stand during the Cold War? It’s easy to say now you were a Reagan Democrat–everyone says that these days. But I also remember 500,000 Germans and Americans showing up to protest American missiles in Europe. I remember how they made fun of Reagan during his “tear down this wall” speech. I remember reading about the inevitable triumph of world socialism, only to then hear about its inevitable failure, just so the Right couldn’t claim credit for any of it.
    Has Kerry even thought this through at all? Do you believe a word he says? Suppose, God forbid, he becomes president–will he go to Chirac and Schroeder and say, hey fellas, how about ponying up some troops for the Iraq effort? What does he expect them to say? Gee, John boy, you said yourself it’s a bad war at a bad time–think we’ll sit this one out. He’s not going to have a coalition of anything.
    You had better pray to Christ that we’re successful in Iraq–that Kerry hasn’t so emboldened our enemies, like he did before, that our mission there has been lost. If the Middle East continues its slide into Islamist death cult-ism, don’t expect the Europeans to do a damn thing about it–that’s the way they’re headed themselves, just from demographic shifts.
    Nice to hear, too, that the only allies that count are France and Germany. Heard that too many times. Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Brazil, Japan, Australia, New Zealand–all have troops there on the line, but it doesn’t matter to the Liberals because France hasn’t sent its pathetic Foreign Legion to legitimize the whole effort. Also funny to hear you quote the Pope, pretty selectively, but tell the church to stay the hell out of the abortion and gay rights debates, as Kerry is diametrically opposed to the church there.
    I personally love this new tack Kerry is taking–I hope he sticks to it at least through this afternoon. Let the Democratic Party be the one of surrender and appeasement, and the Republicans the ones who make the tough decisions, and stick to our commitments. Fortunately, this is all familiar ground, for everyone.

  • Kevin W

    John:
    You could’ve said the very same about our occupation of Japan or Nazi Germany. In fact, many on the Left AND the Right did say those things–we were squandering resources better spent here, we were permanently garrisoning an Army in Europe and Asia to protect our former enemies against Communism, blah blah blah.
    Is democracy possible in the Middle East? Or is it just the Jews and the Turks who are able to manage it? Is that what you think–that if you’re not Jewish, you shouldn’t be allowed to have freedom?
    For someone who claims to have enormous respect for military culture and history, your knowledge seems to be sorely lacking. 1041 troops. Tragic, yes. I’ve lost two friends over there. I also lost two friends on 9/11. How many did we lose at Antietam? Chancellorsville? Belleau Wood? Pearl Harbor? Bastogne? Far as wars go, this one seems pretty cheap.
    Out of curiosity, where did you stand during the Cold War? It’s easy to say now you were a Reagan Democrat–everyone says that these days. But I also remember 500,000 Germans and Americans showing up to protest American missiles in Europe. I remember how they made fun of Reagan during his “tear down this wall” speech. I remember reading about the inevitable triumph of world socialism, only to then hear about its inevitable failure, just so the Right couldn’t claim credit for any of it.
    Has Kerry even thought this through at all? Do you believe a word he says? Suppose, God forbid, he becomes president–will he go to Chirac and Schroeder and say, hey fellas, how about ponying up some troops for the Iraq effort? What does he expect them to say? Gee, John boy, you said yourself it’s a bad war at a bad time–think we’ll sit this one out. He’s not going to have a coalition of anything.
    You had better pray to Christ that we’re successful in Iraq–that Kerry hasn’t so emboldened our enemies, like he did before, that our mission there has been lost. If the Middle East continues its slide into Islamist death cult-ism, don’t expect the Europeans to do a damn thing about it–that’s the way they’re headed themselves, just from demographic shifts.
    Nice to hear, too, that the only allies that count are France and Germany. Heard that too many times. Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Brazil, Japan, Australia, New Zealand–all have troops there on the line, but it doesn’t matter to the Liberals because France hasn’t sent its pathetic Foreign Legion to legitimize the whole effort. Also funny to hear you quote the Pope, pretty selectively, but tell the church to stay the hell out of the abortion and gay rights debates, as Kerry is diametrically opposed to the church there.
    I personally love this new tack Kerry is taking–I hope he sticks to it at least through this afternoon. Let the Democratic Party be the one of surrender and appeasement, and the Republicans the ones who make the tough decisions, and stick to our commitments. Fortunately, this is all familiar ground, for everyone.

  • Kevin W

    Shouldn’t have said the Russia has troops there on the line. Shouldn’t have mentioned them at all, except to say that we were allowed to use Russian bases for our operations against Afghanistan.

  • Kevin W

    Shouldn’t have said the Russia has troops there on the line. Shouldn’t have mentioned them at all, except to say that we were allowed to use Russian bases for our operations against Afghanistan.

  • John

    Kevin,
    Stop avoiding my direct questions and posting drivel about the occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII. Neither of those turned into guerilla warfare against us, and virtually no American lives were lost in the post-war occupation period. I want you to respond to the Vietnam War analogies I made, which you completely ignored. I want you to explain why Evangelical Christians are so intent on staying the course in Iraq? Are you now the self-proclaimed champions of Christian evangelizing and exporters of American-style democracy to the world? Do you really expect to transform Iraq into a country of Christian mega-churches and WalMarts, with McDonald’s and Burger King strip malls on every corner? Get a clue: it ain’t gonna happen. We are reviled, hated, despised more than ever, thanks to your arrogant hero, Dubya, and his arrogant cabal. “…Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall…” Prov 16:18.

  • John

    Kevin,
    Stop avoiding my direct questions and posting drivel about the occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII. Neither of those turned into guerilla warfare against us, and virtually no American lives were lost in the post-war occupation period. I want you to respond to the Vietnam War analogies I made, which you completely ignored. I want you to explain why Evangelical Christians are so intent on staying the course in Iraq? Are you now the self-proclaimed champions of Christian evangelizing and exporters of American-style democracy to the world? Do you really expect to transform Iraq into a country of Christian mega-churches and WalMarts, with McDonald’s and Burger King strip malls on every corner? Get a clue: it ain’t gonna happen. We are reviled, hated, despised more than ever, thanks to your arrogant hero, Dubya, and his arrogant cabal. “…Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall…” Prov 16:18.

  • Kevin W

    You’re not answering my questions: do you believe that democracy in Iraq is possible? And if no, why did you believe that Germany and Japan were capable of it, immediately after the Fuhrer and the Emperor?
    Sure. Let’s export American-style democratic republics to the world. Why not? Isn’t that the Christian thing to do? To replace a totalitarian, enemy regime with one that embraces freedom?
    WHAT IN THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?
    Why does the Liberal Left want America to fail in everything it does?
    Tell you what: you and your candidate, John F. Kerry, make your case to the American people. We are the ones voting, here, by the way–as much as I hear about how much the world doesn’t care for Bush, I don’t really give a damn. After all, the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Pol Pots and the Spanish Colonels were all popularly elected, too. Anyhow, make your case. The United States will make its choice on November 2, 2004. Who knows? In five weeks maybe a plurality of Americans will become effete, French-speaking appeasers, and you’ll be serving me crow.

  • Kevin W

    You’re not answering my questions: do you believe that democracy in Iraq is possible? And if no, why did you believe that Germany and Japan were capable of it, immediately after the Fuhrer and the Emperor?
    Sure. Let’s export American-style democratic republics to the world. Why not? Isn’t that the Christian thing to do? To replace a totalitarian, enemy regime with one that embraces freedom?
    WHAT IN THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?
    Why does the Liberal Left want America to fail in everything it does?
    Tell you what: you and your candidate, John F. Kerry, make your case to the American people. We are the ones voting, here, by the way–as much as I hear about how much the world doesn’t care for Bush, I don’t really give a damn. After all, the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Pol Pots and the Spanish Colonels were all popularly elected, too. Anyhow, make your case. The United States will make its choice on November 2, 2004. Who knows? In five weeks maybe a plurality of Americans will become effete, French-speaking appeasers, and you’ll be serving me crow.

  • Kevin W

    You’re not answering my questions: do you believe that democracy in Iraq is possible? And if no, why did you believe that Germany and Japan were capable of it, immediately after the Fuhrer and the Emperor?
    Sure. Let’s export American-style democratic republics to the world. Why not? Isn’t that the Christian thing to do? To replace a totalitarian, enemy regime with one that embraces freedom?
    WHAT IN THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?
    Why does the Liberal Left want America to fail in everything it does?
    Tell you what: you and your candidate, John F. Kerry, make your case to the American people. We are the ones voting, here, by the way–as much as I hear about how much the world doesn’t care for Bush, I don’t really give a damn. After all, the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Pol Pots and the Spanish Colonels were all popularly elected, too. Anyhow, make your case. The United States will make its choice on November 2, 2004. Who knows? In five weeks maybe a plurality of Americans will become effete, French-speaking appeasers, and you’ll be serving me crow.

  • Kevin W

    You’re not answering my questions: do you believe that democracy in Iraq is possible? And if no, why did you believe that Germany and Japan were capable of it, immediately after the Fuhrer and the Emperor?
    Sure. Let’s export American-style democratic republics to the world. Why not? Isn’t that the Christian thing to do? To replace a totalitarian, enemy regime with one that embraces freedom?
    WHAT IN THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?
    Why does the Liberal Left want America to fail in everything it does?
    Tell you what: you and your candidate, John F. Kerry, make your case to the American people. We are the ones voting, here, by the way–as much as I hear about how much the world doesn’t care for Bush, I don’t really give a damn. After all, the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Pol Pots and the Spanish Colonels were all popularly elected, too. Anyhow, make your case. The United States will make its choice on November 2, 2004. Who knows? In five weeks maybe a plurality of Americans will become effete, French-speaking appeasers, and you’ll be serving me crow.

  • John

    Kevin,
    You say, “You had better pray to Christ that we’re successful in Iraq–that Kerry hasn’t so emboldened our enemies, like he did before, that our mission there has been lost. If the Middle East continues its slide into Islamist death cult-ism, don’t expect the Europeans to do a damn thing about it..”
    What kind of scare-tactics crock is that? Why had I better pray to Christ that we’re successful in Iraq? Iraq is destroyed, they have no industry, no jobs, just oil. Now, what’s this about emboldening our enemies? They are already emboldened to kill us while we occupy their country, as they prove every day as the body bags are flown into Dover. Oh, I see, it’s KERRY who is emboldening our enemies. Buddy, you are full of S$**. Chicken Little Dubya, Chicken Little Cheney, Chicken Little Rumsfeld, Chicken Little Wolfowitz, and Chicken Little Ashcroft are going to keep us safe, is that it? Then why did Newsweek just have an expose of how pathetically easy it is to cross our borders and enter our country? Then why are just 3% of the shipping containers that arrive in our ports from foreign countries inspected as we speak? Then why hasn’t funding to local fire and police departments ever been a priority since 911? Your heros are all talk and braggadocio, and no action – at home, where it really matters.

  • John

    Kevin,
    You say, “You had better pray to Christ that we’re successful in Iraq–that Kerry hasn’t so emboldened our enemies, like he did before, that our mission there has been lost. If the Middle East continues its slide into Islamist death cult-ism, don’t expect the Europeans to do a damn thing about it..”
    What kind of scare-tactics crock is that? Why had I better pray to Christ that we’re successful in Iraq? Iraq is destroyed, they have no industry, no jobs, just oil. Now, what’s this about emboldening our enemies? They are already emboldened to kill us while we occupy their country, as they prove every day as the body bags are flown into Dover. Oh, I see, it’s KERRY who is emboldening our enemies. Buddy, you are full of S$**. Chicken Little Dubya, Chicken Little Cheney, Chicken Little Rumsfeld, Chicken Little Wolfowitz, and Chicken Little Ashcroft are going to keep us safe, is that it? Then why did Newsweek just have an expose of how pathetically easy it is to cross our borders and enter our country? Then why are just 3% of the shipping containers that arrive in our ports from foreign countries inspected as we speak? Then why hasn’t funding to local fire and police departments ever been a priority since 911? Your heros are all talk and braggadocio, and no action – at home, where it really matters.

  • Kevin W

    You’re right, John.
    America’s a bunch of losers. We all suck. Kerry should represent us. That’s why he’s up 37 points in the polls. I’m going home right now, getting out my toolbox, and headed down to the port and I’ll start inspecting containers myself. We should elect Saddam Hussein–he at least knew how to keep his people quiet. Maybe it’s not too late to run a Kerry-Hussein ticket. We should create a new federal agency: Department of Municipal Police and Fire Departments, and centralize everything. Worked for Hussein. Worked in the Soviet Union, too, before it fell apart. Let’s build a giant dome over America, to keep all the terrorists out, since we obviously can’t beat them where they live.
    Chicken Little Bush. You’re stupid. It’s Kerry who’s preaching defeatism today. Yesterday he said we could win but only with the French and the Germans there. The day before that he said we would win but only with more troops. Last week he said he would bring all the troops home. Godalmighty–if I’m a terrorist, all I gotta do is make sure Kerry is elected, and the US is going home. Then I’m re-opening the rape rooms and rounding up the Kurds again.
    Kerry is a fool. He was played a fool by the VietCong, then by the Russians, now by the terrorists in Iraq. Well see in a few weeks how many Americans are foolish too. Looks like there’s three already on this thread alone.

  • Kevin W

    You’re right, John.
    America’s a bunch of losers. We all suck. Kerry should represent us. That’s why he’s up 37 points in the polls. I’m going home right now, getting out my toolbox, and headed down to the port and I’ll start inspecting containers myself. We should elect Saddam Hussein–he at least knew how to keep his people quiet. Maybe it’s not too late to run a Kerry-Hussein ticket. We should create a new federal agency: Department of Municipal Police and Fire Departments, and centralize everything. Worked for Hussein. Worked in the Soviet Union, too, before it fell apart. Let’s build a giant dome over America, to keep all the terrorists out, since we obviously can’t beat them where they live.
    Chicken Little Bush. You’re stupid. It’s Kerry who’s preaching defeatism today. Yesterday he said we could win but only with the French and the Germans there. The day before that he said we would win but only with more troops. Last week he said he would bring all the troops home. Godalmighty–if I’m a terrorist, all I gotta do is make sure Kerry is elected, and the US is going home. Then I’m re-opening the rape rooms and rounding up the Kurds again.
    Kerry is a fool. He was played a fool by the VietCong, then by the Russians, now by the terrorists in Iraq. Well see in a few weeks how many Americans are foolish too. Looks like there’s three already on this thread alone.

  • John

    Kevin W,
    What do you give a crap about rape rooms and rounding up Kurds in Iraq, you lying hypocrite? You certainly didn’t care about the Kurds when Ronald Reagan was president and George H Walker Bush was head of the CIA, and the CIA was providing WMD to Saddam Hussein, who used them to keep the Kurds under control, did you? Don’t try to get self-righteous on me now, or try to make Ronald Reagan, who I disliked (but not as much as I do Dubya) when he was president, into a god-like figure, now that he’s dead. The CIA in those years also created another infamous figure, maybe you’ve heard of him: Osama Bin Laden. Of course, your political party no longers utters his name, since the fact that he is still on the loose is a bit of an embarrassment.
    And you obviously don’t care about ordinary Iraqis including women and children in cities like Fallujah, who every day become victims of “collateral damage” bombings. You probably don’t care because, in your black and white world, they are all bad guys, and after all, the media never shows the suffering of the innocent victims of this horrible war. Hint: go see Fahrenheit 911 if you want to see real Iraqi women and children suffering. It takes away all the swagger and glory of blowing up inanimate bad guys, like it’s some kind of video game. But that’s all our media shows: tanks rolling across the desert with “embedded” media, cameras rolling. Far away views of huge explosions shooting up into the night sky. Isn’t it glorious? USA!! USA!!
    Now, back to your question: NO, I do not believe democracy is possible in Iraq SO LONG AS WE ARE THERE AS AN OCCUPYING FORCE. This isn’t Germany or Japan, where the defeated people completely and totally capitulated. Have you paid attention to our experimental quasi-democracy in Afghanistan lately, you moron? It’s going very poorly. And Iraq is much, much more volatile and complex than Afghanistan. Tribal and religious hatred abound in Iraq, a badly configured geographic area put together by the British in the early 20th century before they were decimated by guerilla warfare and pulled out. This geographic area would work better if it were split into three independent countries, for starters, which would separate the Sunnis, Shiia, and Kurds, and give each constituency the independence and self-determination it desires.

  • John

    Kevin W,
    What do you give a crap about rape rooms and rounding up Kurds in Iraq, you lying hypocrite? You certainly didn’t care about the Kurds when Ronald Reagan was president and George H Walker Bush was head of the CIA, and the CIA was providing WMD to Saddam Hussein, who used them to keep the Kurds under control, did you? Don’t try to get self-righteous on me now, or try to make Ronald Reagan, who I disliked (but not as much as I do Dubya) when he was president, into a god-like figure, now that he’s dead. The CIA in those years also created another infamous figure, maybe you’ve heard of him: Osama Bin Laden. Of course, your political party no longers utters his name, since the fact that he is still on the loose is a bit of an embarrassment.
    And you obviously don’t care about ordinary Iraqis including women and children in cities like Fallujah, who every day become victims of “collateral damage” bombings. You probably don’t care because, in your black and white world, they are all bad guys, and after all, the media never shows the suffering of the innocent victims of this horrible war. Hint: go see Fahrenheit 911 if you want to see real Iraqi women and children suffering. It takes away all the swagger and glory of blowing up inanimate bad guys, like it’s some kind of video game. But that’s all our media shows: tanks rolling across the desert with “embedded” media, cameras rolling. Far away views of huge explosions shooting up into the night sky. Isn’t it glorious? USA!! USA!!
    Now, back to your question: NO, I do not believe democracy is possible in Iraq SO LONG AS WE ARE THERE AS AN OCCUPYING FORCE. This isn’t Germany or Japan, where the defeated people completely and totally capitulated. Have you paid attention to our experimental quasi-democracy in Afghanistan lately, you moron? It’s going very poorly. And Iraq is much, much more volatile and complex than Afghanistan. Tribal and religious hatred abound in Iraq, a badly configured geographic area put together by the British in the early 20th century before they were decimated by guerilla warfare and pulled out. This geographic area would work better if it were split into three independent countries, for starters, which would separate the Sunnis, Shiia, and Kurds, and give each constituency the independence and self-determination it desires.

  • Larry Lord

    “And Iraq is much, much more volatile and complex than Afghanistan. Tribal and religious hatred abound in Iraq, a badly configured geographic area put together by the British in the early 20th century before they were decimated by guerilla warfare and pulled out. ”
    And of course, these facts were well known prior to our invasion of Iraq but swept under the rug by Bush and his handlers, once they realized that the slim chance that an invasion of Iraq would secure 4 more years of Bush Jr. was the only chance they had to keep this incompetent unintelligible weak-minded man in office and continue to line the pockets of their wealthy constituents.

  • Larry Lord

    “And Iraq is much, much more volatile and complex than Afghanistan. Tribal and religious hatred abound in Iraq, a badly configured geographic area put together by the British in the early 20th century before they were decimated by guerilla warfare and pulled out. ”
    And of course, these facts were well known prior to our invasion of Iraq but swept under the rug by Bush and his handlers, once they realized that the slim chance that an invasion of Iraq would secure 4 more years of Bush Jr. was the only chance they had to keep this incompetent unintelligible weak-minded man in office and continue to line the pockets of their wealthy constituents.

  • Kevin W

    I agree with much of what you’ve said. We were obviously living in a world in the early eighties where we had to choose the lesser of two very large evils. An hyper-militant, Shiite Iran that would overrun Iraq would then threaten Kuwait and the whole of the Trans-Jordan, and put much of Islam under one flag. Horrible scenario.
    Almost as bad, but not quite, is the idea of arming Saddam, who would plow troops by the hundreds of thousands against Iran and the mullahs, in a war of utter despair. I remember the battle of Basra was one that lasted nearly an entire decade, if memory serves. And, let’s be honest, lurking just to the north was the world’s largest country, who was on a mission to Communize the whole world. The whole situation made for some awfully unpalatable choices.
    As hard as it is for you to believe, I do care about the Iraqi people, and Kurdish people, and Palestinian people. But for the miracle of birth, I may have been one of them. But if you pretend to know your military history as well as you claim, you would also know that in this conflict collateral damage is at an all-time low. I left the Army in 1998, and was a little uneasy in the way our battle doctrine seemed to endanger US troops to benefit enemy noncombatants. Trust me–American troops are not over there putting on a fireworks show like Kerry says he once did–just blowing up cities and villages and raping women for the hell of it.
    In the end, you will be right–Iraq will be re-partitioned. Two thirds of the state will remain on their own, the Kurds will eventually have autonomy (to no delight of the Turks), and the minority Sunnis will make do with wherever they can go. But there will be, and always should be, a substantial US presence on the ground in what is now Iraq. There’s nothing like a few squadrons of aircraft and a heavy division close by to keep the people in line.

  • Kevin W

    I agree with much of what you’ve said. We were obviously living in a world in the early eighties where we had to choose the lesser of two very large evils. An hyper-militant, Shiite Iran that would overrun Iraq would then threaten Kuwait and the whole of the Trans-Jordan, and put much of Islam under one flag. Horrible scenario.
    Almost as bad, but not quite, is the idea of arming Saddam, who would plow troops by the hundreds of thousands against Iran and the mullahs, in a war of utter despair. I remember the battle of Basra was one that lasted nearly an entire decade, if memory serves. And, let’s be honest, lurking just to the north was the world’s largest country, who was on a mission to Communize the whole world. The whole situation made for some awfully unpalatable choices.
    As hard as it is for you to believe, I do care about the Iraqi people, and Kurdish people, and Palestinian people. But for the miracle of birth, I may have been one of them. But if you pretend to know your military history as well as you claim, you would also know that in this conflict collateral damage is at an all-time low. I left the Army in 1998, and was a little uneasy in the way our battle doctrine seemed to endanger US troops to benefit enemy noncombatants. Trust me–American troops are not over there putting on a fireworks show like Kerry says he once did–just blowing up cities and villages and raping women for the hell of it.
    In the end, you will be right–Iraq will be re-partitioned. Two thirds of the state will remain on their own, the Kurds will eventually have autonomy (to no delight of the Turks), and the minority Sunnis will make do with wherever they can go. But there will be, and always should be, a substantial US presence on the ground in what is now Iraq. There’s nothing like a few squadrons of aircraft and a heavy division close by to keep the people in line.

  • David Marcoe

    John, I’m just going to respond to this post, because if I tried to respond to every post you made on this thread I would be here a very long time. But no offense meant to your posts either. It’s just this subject is boring me a little and I want to move on. However, I did make a promise to respond to your post, so here it is.
    I loathe the idea that the far-fringe leaders of my country manipulated the tragedy of 911 into an opportunity to carry out a pre-conceived agenda (Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, 1993) to finish conquering Iraq by synthesizing false pretenses (WMD, active nuclear weapons program, long-range missiles, etc.) and presenting this to the world as proof that it was urgent that we attack Iraq immediately, with or without the help of our long-standing allies, and before Han Blix’s WMD inspections team could finish their assessment.
    I would loathe the idea to, if I found it to be true…
    First of all, calling Bush and company “far-fringe” is, well, far-fringe. Under that definition, Andrew Sullivan is the Religious Right. Bush is, fiscally speaking, is rather liberal. His has expanded social spending far more than Clinton ever did. And he is no more religious than Reagan was. And his actions are supported by millions of Americans and quite a few in the military, at all levels. That doesn’t sound like far-fringe to me.
    Second, the question to ask is a simple “why?” The notion of a pre-conceived agenda is not ludicris. I’m sure there are plenty of those in Washington. But what strikes me is that the cost and risk of such an agenda–politically, financially, and economically costly and very risky–would have been obvious to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, with no clear benefit.
    Now, you could argue that oil was the reason, but the overall cost of such an action is far greater, than say, tapping resources in Alaska, or buying more Russian oil, or still better, investing in Russian companies who extract the oil, which coould be couched in an agenda on reinvigorating the economy and become more self-sufficient to resist terrorism. That would have won the administration brownie points and would have economically sound. In Iraq, you have politically unstable and unsafe country that no large company would invest in for years until it stabilized. Not only that, but the profit margin in the petrochemical industry is thin: It takes years to get to profitability. On top of that, the country has no native refining capacity and the extraction equipment is vulnerable to attack. Even if we were invading for oil, we would have to pay companies to invest there, with basically no chance of short term profit and a big question mark as to the long term future, which effects perceptions of potential investors. You’re looking at a net loss to our economy and a very stupid way of getting oil.
    And yet there is also no evidence that we are there for oil. Increasingly it is Iraqis controlling the infrastrcture. Our tax dollars are paying for the stuff to be shipped to Kuwait so that the Iraqis can have gas in their cars. And we’re the only ones not buying oil from them.
    Surely vendetta doesn’t make a lot of sense either when, again, viewing the cost and risk. It would have made more sense to recind the old executive order banning asassinations, send in a group of Delta operators, and cap the SOB. Other than assuming hat Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld lack some fundamental part of humanity, why would they risk that many troops to do something that could have used far less people?
    Of course assuming that they did, the campaign has none of the ear-marks of an operation planned years in advance: logistical woes, supply shortages, last-minute mobilizations of National Guard and Reserve units, and an overall bebate about the number of troops needed.
    Now, in retrospect, we all know the irrefutable truth: the WMD argument was a sham. Now it’s clear that years of inspections and sanctions had turned Saddam Hussein into nothing more than a tin-pot dictator, a paper tiger, a toothless lion, regardless of his megalomania. He simply wasn’t the threat Colin Powell made him out to be at the U.N., and I sincerely believe in my heart that he knew it, and the Bush Administration knew it, too. We were going to go to war come hell or high water. Coincidentally, our country’s 2002 elections were right around the corner when the war drums started beating, remember? Coincidence? I think not.
    Two big points: The intelligence that every nation in the world had access to was crap and key agency responsible for gathering that intelligence was running without the needed resources and “sloppy” would be an understatement for the way it was being run, under a Clinton appointee. Every defector and every document coming out of Iraq said they had WMDs. And the defectors coming out of the country passing on intelligence on to us fully believed the same thing. Why? Because the compartmentalization of the regime meant that no one faction could completely know what the other was doing. On paper there were substantial amounts of WMDs. There was no indication to the contrary. In Saddam thought he had more than he did. So without the contacts on the ground and in the country to confirm or deny, we had an indication that Iraq had a fairly formiddable arsenal with fairly open borders.
    And yet there is evidence that he had some. We’ve found lab equipment, plans, potential weapons platforms to use the weapons in, and even undisposed amounts of old chemical weapons, which the inspections didn’t find. It is just that we found no actual weapons.Why would that be? After two subsequent inspections in only three years, he had good motive to plan an exit strategy for his weapons. Even after the 1998 inspection, they were moving stuff out the back doors of facilties while stalling the inspectors. We haven’t even stepped foot in to Syria, which is the sister regime and up until the time of the invassion, allowed Iraqi officials to travle back and forht with impugnity.
    The ’95 and ’98 inspections only searched a fraction of what was in Iraq. And the ’98 inspections barely got anywhere in their search. It’s possible that much of the operations were simply moved to Syria after ’98. I also fail to see how the actions of handful of dictators and largely corrupted sanctions (his was making money off the oil for food scheme) turned him into a tin-pot dictator; a few dozen palaces and a conscript army of over 200,000, with tanks and light vehicles to back it up doesn’t usually constitute definition of “tin-pot.” Frankly, I think he weathered the sanctions pretty well.
    As to the elections: Kosovo occured around the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Did Clinton mobilize forces to distract the nation’s attention? Your premise is weak, because it is could well be coincidence and the obvious cost and risk I previously mentioned was obvious to anyone with half a brain. There were much more politically safer things that he could have done.
    You say, “But why didn’t we target countries more directly responsible for terrorism? Because we couldn’t have occupied after attacking.”
    That is one of the more bizarre rationalizations for the Iraq war that I have heard. Don’t attack those responsible because occupation is easier if you attack someone else not responsible? Are you kidding me?

    Are you kidding me? Did you read the context of the statement you quoted?
    Given the choice between short term retaliation, or a long term goal that can accomplish more–namely, establishing a legitimate counter-balance to Islamo-fascism–Iraq made more sense, especially since trying to accomplish the short term goal would have been far harder. Saudi Arabia or Iran were the generally proposed targets for retaliation, but both of those have populations that would have been far more hostile to an occupying force and nowhere as ready to try democracy. The opinions of the average Saudi mirror those of the Taliban. There isn’t a potential foothold for democracy. And what do you think would have happened if we occupied the country that holds the city of Mecca? You think Iraq looks bad now, you would have thought it was a vacation spot if you were to see what would happen in an occupied Saudi Arabia.
    So, we picked a country that was in the terror loop and struck. We now have a foothold in the Middle East that is a bit stronger and better placed than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
    I loathe the way the Bush Administration keeps changing the rationale for conquering Iraq, because it only deflects the truth: we were deceived about the original reasons for going to war. Don’t change the subject and tell me that we’re better off with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell. (Am I better off? Not that I can tell. If he suffered from megalomania (which he did/does), but had no ability to harm me, then he wasn’t a threat to me, was he? Anymore than untold others around the world who are delusional, right?) Compared to what Iraq has become today, at least Saddam Hussein was in a box, contained.
    The Bush Administration, before and after, was never clear on why we should, but that wasn’t specific to the invastion, but the symptom of the larger behavior inside the Administration, which has happened on a number of occasions.
    And generally people with megalomania or delusions aren’t leading a country. Sill fewer actually lead a country as large as Iraq. As to whether you “feel” safer or not, is not of supreme consequence. Public perception does have some roll to play, but making better long term strategic choices is the first priority. All things considered, Saddam is better off in a cell. Iraq wasn’t in a box. They were still funding terrorists groups, had terrorist training camps in-country, had had conversations contacts with Al Queda operatives (I’m not saying they participated in 9/11) on a number of occasions, found the time to build new radar and missile implacements (which they used to shoot at and track our planes along the no-fly zone in 2001), made money off of graft from the oil-for-food program, and still had open borders with Syria and Iran. Yeah, that is really being in a box.
    Now, by all new accounts, Iraq has, indeed been turned into a breeding ground for terrorists and Islamic mercenaries.
    Um, no. Most insurgents now are trained Iranian agents coming in over the border to stir things up. And even if it is being turned in to a breeding ground, it is taking away terrorist attention and resources from our home land, no? A strategic slight-of-hand that would make Sun Tzu proud.
    Hussein’s Stalinist (no fascist) regime has been dismantled, and border-crossing terrorists and mercenaries have filled the vacuum, blowing up and shooting more of our sitting-ducks sons and daughters every day. And you call this an improvement?
    The Ba’ath Party was the product of the pan-Arab nationalism that arose after WWII, when the influence of Britain and other nations was withdrawn. The structure of his regime might resemble the mechanisms created by Stalin, but that was because he recieved so much support from the Soviet Union. In truth, there is little practical difference between the two and groups as diverse and Islamic terrorists and white supremacists informally cooperate from time to time.
    And while terrorists may have filled part of the vacuum, so has a new Iraqi, a growing Iraqi army, and a national police force. And yes I would call it an improvement when the average Iraqi can speak their mind with out worrying about torture and death. I would suggest the Iraqi blog Road of A Nation for a small taste product of what we have achieved there already.
    No objective strategic analyst in the entire world is saying that Iraq has any chance anytime in the coming years to become truly democratic.
    Cite. Because I have heard the best analysts in world–soldiers in the special operations community who have served or are serving in Iraq–and I have never heard that. Socnetcentral.com/vb if you want to talk to some of them.
    But George Bush keeps spouting this nonsense every day in his full-time job in marketing for the RNC (by the way, when does he ever actually do the job of being President?). “If I say it enough, then it will be so.”
    How many Senate votes has Kerry missed so far? As I nuderstand it, it is sitting somewhere above 70%. Every campaign trip so far has him doing most of the stuff in person. Bush, in comparison, has done far fewer in person, especially here in Minnesota, which is a battleground State.
    Most strategic analysts are predicting ongoing guerilla warfare so long as we remain, or possibly all-out civil war if we retreat. This is a mess of Vietnam proportions, yes sir. I await your response.
    Vietnam: Five hundred casualties a week, average survival time of a soldier in a hot landing zone was sixteen seconds, dropped more ordinance than in WWII, and the total sustain force through the war was above five hundred thousand. All of that, and the enemy regime was never removed. No, it isn’t Vietnam proportions.
    I don’t know if you have noticed, but the net number of native Iraqi guerillas and large scale guerilla operations has decreased in Iraq. The number of foreign guerillas, without large scale support of most Iraqis has increased, but an enemy always gets more and more desparate the closer to defeat it gets to. The fact that they are sending in more men means that they weren’t able to dislodge with previous efforts.
    Now, I’m not going to respond to this again, largely because I have spent too much time on it and the thread is a bit far down. Nothing against you.

  • David Marcoe

    John, I’m just going to respond to this post, because if I tried to respond to every post you made on this thread I would be here a very long time. But no offense meant to your posts either. It’s just this subject is boring me a little and I want to move on. However, I did make a promise to respond to your post, so here it is.
    I loathe the idea that the far-fringe leaders of my country manipulated the tragedy of 911 into an opportunity to carry out a pre-conceived agenda (Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, 1993) to finish conquering Iraq by synthesizing false pretenses (WMD, active nuclear weapons program, long-range missiles, etc.) and presenting this to the world as proof that it was urgent that we attack Iraq immediately, with or without the help of our long-standing allies, and before Han Blix’s WMD inspections team could finish their assessment.
    I would loathe the idea to, if I found it to be true…
    First of all, calling Bush and company “far-fringe” is, well, far-fringe. Under that definition, Andrew Sullivan is the Religious Right. Bush is, fiscally speaking, is rather liberal. His has expanded social spending far more than Clinton ever did. And he is no more religious than Reagan was. And his actions are supported by millions of Americans and quite a few in the military, at all levels. That doesn’t sound like far-fringe to me.
    Second, the question to ask is a simple “why?” The notion of a pre-conceived agenda is not ludicris. I’m sure there are plenty of those in Washington. But what strikes me is that the cost and risk of such an agenda–politically, financially, and economically costly and very risky–would have been obvious to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, with no clear benefit.
    Now, you could argue that oil was the reason, but the overall cost of such an action is far greater, than say, tapping resources in Alaska, or buying more Russian oil, or still better, investing in Russian companies who extract the oil, which coould be couched in an agenda on reinvigorating the economy and become more self-sufficient to resist terrorism. That would have won the administration brownie points and would have economically sound. In Iraq, you have politically unstable and unsafe country that no large company would invest in for years until it stabilized. Not only that, but the profit margin in the petrochemical industry is thin: It takes years to get to profitability. On top of that, the country has no native refining capacity and the extraction equipment is vulnerable to attack. Even if we were invading for oil, we would have to pay companies to invest there, with basically no chance of short term profit and a big question mark as to the long term future, which effects perceptions of potential investors. You’re looking at a net loss to our economy and a very stupid way of getting oil.
    And yet there is also no evidence that we are there for oil. Increasingly it is Iraqis controlling the infrastrcture. Our tax dollars are paying for the stuff to be shipped to Kuwait so that the Iraqis can have gas in their cars. And we’re the only ones not buying oil from them.
    Surely vendetta doesn’t make a lot of sense either when, again, viewing the cost and risk. It would have made more sense to recind the old executive order banning asassinations, send in a group of Delta operators, and cap the SOB. Other than assuming hat Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld lack some fundamental part of humanity, why would they risk that many troops to do something that could have used far less people?
    Of course assuming that they did, the campaign has none of the ear-marks of an operation planned years in advance: logistical woes, supply shortages, last-minute mobilizations of National Guard and Reserve units, and an overall bebate about the number of troops needed.
    Now, in retrospect, we all know the irrefutable truth: the WMD argument was a sham. Now it’s clear that years of inspections and sanctions had turned Saddam Hussein into nothing more than a tin-pot dictator, a paper tiger, a toothless lion, regardless of his megalomania. He simply wasn’t the threat Colin Powell made him out to be at the U.N., and I sincerely believe in my heart that he knew it, and the Bush Administration knew it, too. We were going to go to war come hell or high water. Coincidentally, our country’s 2002 elections were right around the corner when the war drums started beating, remember? Coincidence? I think not.
    Two big points: The intelligence that every nation in the world had access to was crap and key agency responsible for gathering that intelligence was running without the needed resources and “sloppy” would be an understatement for the way it was being run, under a Clinton appointee. Every defector and every document coming out of Iraq said they had WMDs. And the defectors coming out of the country passing on intelligence on to us fully believed the same thing. Why? Because the compartmentalization of the regime meant that no one faction could completely know what the other was doing. On paper there were substantial amounts of WMDs. There was no indication to the contrary. In Saddam thought he had more than he did. So without the contacts on the ground and in the country to confirm or deny, we had an indication that Iraq had a fairly formiddable arsenal with fairly open borders.
    And yet there is evidence that he had some. We’ve found lab equipment, plans, potential weapons platforms to use the weapons in, and even undisposed amounts of old chemical weapons, which the inspections didn’t find. It is just that we found no actual weapons.Why would that be? After two subsequent inspections in only three years, he had good motive to plan an exit strategy for his weapons. Even after the 1998 inspection, they were moving stuff out the back doors of facilties while stalling the inspectors. We haven’t even stepped foot in to Syria, which is the sister regime and up until the time of the invassion, allowed Iraqi officials to travle back and forht with impugnity.
    The ’95 and ’98 inspections only searched a fraction of what was in Iraq. And the ’98 inspections barely got anywhere in their search. It’s possible that much of the operations were simply moved to Syria after ’98. I also fail to see how the actions of handful of dictators and largely corrupted sanctions (his was making money off the oil for food scheme) turned him into a tin-pot dictator; a few dozen palaces and a conscript army of over 200,000, with tanks and light vehicles to back it up doesn’t usually constitute definition of “tin-pot.” Frankly, I think he weathered the sanctions pretty well.
    As to the elections: Kosovo occured around the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Did Clinton mobilize forces to distract the nation’s attention? Your premise is weak, because it is could well be coincidence and the obvious cost and risk I previously mentioned was obvious to anyone with half a brain. There were much more politically safer things that he could have done.
    You say, “But why didn’t we target countries more directly responsible for terrorism? Because we couldn’t have occupied after attacking.”
    That is one of the more bizarre rationalizations for the Iraq war that I have heard. Don’t attack those responsible because occupation is easier if you attack someone else not responsible? Are you kidding me?

    Are you kidding me? Did you read the context of the statement you quoted?
    Given the choice between short term retaliation, or a long term goal that can accomplish more–namely, establishing a legitimate counter-balance to Islamo-fascism–Iraq made more sense, especially since trying to accomplish the short term goal would have been far harder. Saudi Arabia or Iran were the generally proposed targets for retaliation, but both of those have populations that would have been far more hostile to an occupying force and nowhere as ready to try democracy. The opinions of the average Saudi mirror those of the Taliban. There isn’t a potential foothold for democracy. And what do you think would have happened if we occupied the country that holds the city of Mecca? You think Iraq looks bad now, you would have thought it was a vacation spot if you were to see what would happen in an occupied Saudi Arabia.
    So, we picked a country that was in the terror loop and struck. We now have a foothold in the Middle East that is a bit stronger and better placed than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
    I loathe the way the Bush Administration keeps changing the rationale for conquering Iraq, because it only deflects the truth: we were deceived about the original reasons for going to war. Don’t change the subject and tell me that we’re better off with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell. (Am I better off? Not that I can tell. If he suffered from megalomania (which he did/does), but had no ability to harm me, then he wasn’t a threat to me, was he? Anymore than untold others around the world who are delusional, right?) Compared to what Iraq has become today, at least Saddam Hussein was in a box, contained.
    The Bush Administration, before and after, was never clear on why we should, but that wasn’t specific to the invastion, but the symptom of the larger behavior inside the Administration, which has happened on a number of occasions.
    And generally people with megalomania or delusions aren’t leading a country. Sill fewer actually lead a country as large as Iraq. As to whether you “feel” safer or not, is not of supreme consequence. Public perception does have some roll to play, but making better long term strategic choices is the first priority. All things considered, Saddam is better off in a cell. Iraq wasn’t in a box. They were still funding terrorists groups, had terrorist training camps in-country, had had conversations contacts with Al Queda operatives (I’m not saying they participated in 9/11) on a number of occasions, found the time to build new radar and missile implacements (which they used to shoot at and track our planes along the no-fly zone in 2001), made money off of graft from the oil-for-food program, and still had open borders with Syria and Iran. Yeah, that is really being in a box.
    Now, by all new accounts, Iraq has, indeed been turned into a breeding ground for terrorists and Islamic mercenaries.
    Um, no. Most insurgents now are trained Iranian agents coming in over the border to stir things up. And even if it is being turned in to a breeding ground, it is taking away terrorist attention and resources from our home land, no? A strategic slight-of-hand that would make Sun Tzu proud.
    Hussein’s Stalinist (no fascist) regime has been dismantled, and border-crossing terrorists and mercenaries have filled the vacuum, blowing up and shooting more of our sitting-ducks sons and daughters every day. And you call this an improvement?
    The Ba’ath Party was the product of the pan-Arab nationalism that arose after WWII, when the influence of Britain and other nations was withdrawn. The structure of his regime might resemble the mechanisms created by Stalin, but that was because he recieved so much support from the Soviet Union. In truth, there is little practical difference between the two and groups as diverse and Islamic terrorists and white supremacists informally cooperate from time to time.
    And while terrorists may have filled part of the vacuum, so has a new Iraqi, a growing Iraqi army, and a national police force. And yes I would call it an improvement when the average Iraqi can speak their mind with out worrying about torture and death. I would suggest the Iraqi blog Road of A Nation for a small taste product of what we have achieved there already.
    No objective strategic analyst in the entire world is saying that Iraq has any chance anytime in the coming years to become truly democratic.
    Cite. Because I have heard the best analysts in world–soldiers in the special operations community who have served or are serving in Iraq–and I have never heard that. Socnetcentral.com/vb if you want to talk to some of them.
    But George Bush keeps spouting this nonsense every day in his full-time job in marketing for the RNC (by the way, when does he ever actually do the job of being President?). “If I say it enough, then it will be so.”
    How many Senate votes has Kerry missed so far? As I nuderstand it, it is sitting somewhere above 70%. Every campaign trip so far has him doing most of the stuff in person. Bush, in comparison, has done far fewer in person, especially here in Minnesota, which is a battleground State.
    Most strategic analysts are predicting ongoing guerilla warfare so long as we remain, or possibly all-out civil war if we retreat. This is a mess of Vietnam proportions, yes sir. I await your response.
    Vietnam: Five hundred casualties a week, average survival time of a soldier in a hot landing zone was sixteen seconds, dropped more ordinance than in WWII, and the total sustain force through the war was above five hundred thousand. All of that, and the enemy regime was never removed. No, it isn’t Vietnam proportions.
    I don’t know if you have noticed, but the net number of native Iraqi guerillas and large scale guerilla operations has decreased in Iraq. The number of foreign guerillas, without large scale support of most Iraqis has increased, but an enemy always gets more and more desparate the closer to defeat it gets to. The fact that they are sending in more men means that they weren’t able to dislodge with previous efforts.
    Now, I’m not going to respond to this again, largely because I have spent too much time on it and the thread is a bit far down. Nothing against you.

  • David Marcoe

    Edit: of handful of inspectors

  • David Marcoe

    Edit: of handful of inspectors

  • Larry Lord

    “Because I have heard the best analysts in world–soldiers in the special operations community who have served or are serving in Iraq”
    The best analysts in the world? According to who? You????? Don’t make me laugh.

  • Larry Lord

    “Because I have heard the best analysts in world–soldiers in the special operations community who have served or are serving in Iraq”
    The best analysts in the world? According to who? You????? Don’t make me laugh.

  • David Marcoe

    Why Larry? is it because you want to make me laugh? Because you are…
    Here is my short and final answer on this thread: Everyone but you acknowledges their epxpertise. It’s why they end up getting $100,000 contracts for their services after going civilian. It’s why most of the military analysts going acorss a TV are military veterans.
    Considering they are the ones actually doing the damn job and their lives and limbs depend on doing it right, they are the ones most qualified to comment. You wouldn’t ask the bat boy at a ball park to teach you how to throw a curve ball, no matter how games he watched. You would ask the star pitcher first.
    Fin. I am done with this damn thread…

  • David Marcoe

    Why Larry? is it because you want to make me laugh? Because you are…
    Here is my short and final answer on this thread: Everyone but you acknowledges their epxpertise. It’s why they end up getting $100,000 contracts for their services after going civilian. It’s why most of the military analysts going acorss a TV are military veterans.
    Considering they are the ones actually doing the damn job and their lives and limbs depend on doing it right, they are the ones most qualified to comment. You wouldn’t ask the bat boy at a ball park to teach you how to throw a curve ball, no matter how games he watched. You would ask the star pitcher first.
    Fin. I am done with this damn thread…

  • http://www.allkinds-pills.com/cephalexin.html cephalexin

    cephalexin

    You are invited to check some relevant pages in the field of valium hgh

  • http://www.allkinds-pills.com/cephalexin.html cephalexin

    cephalexin

    You are invited to check some relevant pages in the field of valium hgh

  • http://doyles-room.dostweb.com/ doyles room

    doyles room

    please visit doyles room

  • http://doyles-room.dostweb.com doyles room

    doyles room

    please visit doyles room

  • http://www.thexmlguys.com/betting.html uk betting

    uk betting

    You may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages on winning numbers illinois pick jackpots midday

  • http://www.thexmlguys.com/betting.html uk betting

    uk betting

    You may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages on winning numbers illinois pick jackpots midday

  • http://www.cadalaco.info/ carts cones drills earplug edg

    cadalaco

    cadalaco

  • http://www.cadalaco.info/ carts cones drills earplug edger

    cadalaco

    cadalaco

  • http://www.valenuti.info/ accounting asbestos bankruptcy

    valenuti

    valenuti

  • http://www.valenuti.info/ accounting asbestos bankruptcy blackberry

    valenuti

    valenuti

  • http://vicodine.hostingrapid.com/ vicodin

    vicodin

    Probably vicodin.

  • http://vicodine.hostingrapid.com vicodin

    vicodin

    Probably vicodin.

  • http://ultram.deep-ice.com/ ultram

    ultram

    Hibet ultram?

  • http://ultram.deep-ice.com/ ultram

    ultram

    Hibet ultram?

  • http://levitra1.4t.com/ levitra

    levitra

    Joincash levitra bet?

  • http://levitra1.4t.com levitra

    levitra

    Joincash levitra bet?

  • http://meridia1.00game.com/ meridia

    meridia

    He meridia.

  • http://meridia1.00game.com meridia

    meridia

    He meridia.

  • http://d.1asphost.com/meridia/ meridia

    meridia

    Threeback meridia?

  • http://d.1asphost.com/meridia/ meridia

    meridia

    Threeback meridia?

  • http://vicodin.undonet.com/ vicodin

    vicodin

    If vicodin coup.

  • http://vicodin.undonet.com/ vicodin

    vicodin

    If vicodin coup.

  • http://vicodin.undonet.com/ vicodin

    vicodin

    Actually vicodin!

  • http://vicodin.undonet.com/ vicodin

    vicodin

    Actually vicodin!

  • http://www.mazefort.info/ aircondition airpurifier bakin

    mazefort

    mazefort

  • http://www.mazefort.info/ aircondition airpurifier baking bartools

    mazefort

    mazefort

  • http://xenical.hostingrapid.com/ xenical

    xenical

    These xenical.

  • http://xenical.hostingrapid.com xenical

    xenical

    These xenical.

  • http://xenical.hostingrapid.com/ xenical

    xenical

    Gocripple xenical double!

  • http://xenical.hostingrapid.com xenical

    xenical

    Gocripple xenical double!

  • http://vicodine11.tripod.com/ vicodine

    vicodine

    In this case vicodine!

  • http://vicodine11.tripod.com/ vicodine

    vicodine

    In this case vicodine!

  • http://sonata11.50megs.com/ sonata

    sonata

    Wherehigh sonata!

  • http://sonata11.50megs.com sonata

    sonata

    Wherehigh sonata!

  • http://sonata11.50megs.com/ sonata

    sonata

    Thevegas sonata base!

  • http://sonata11.50megs.com sonata

    sonata

    Thevegas sonata base!

  • http://meridia.scriptmania.com/ meridia

    meridia

    That meridia tough.

  • http://meridia.scriptmania.com meridia

    meridia

    That meridia tough.

  • http://vicodine.allhyper.com/ vicodin

    vicodin

    Afterscore vicodin!

  • http://vicodine.allhyper.com vicodin

    vicodin

    Afterscore vicodin!

  • http://ionamin.0pi.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    It seems to menumber ionamin!

  • http://ionamin.0pi.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    Respectfully ionamin strategies?

  • http://ionamin.0pi.com ionamin

    ionamin

    It seems to menumber ionamin!

  • http://ionamin.0pi.com ionamin

    ionamin

    Respectfully ionamin strategies?

  • http://ultram.fragism.com ultram

    ultram

    Most ultram blind?

  • http://ultram.fragism.com/ ultram

    ultram

    Most ultram blind?

  • http://ionamin.9cy.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    Take ionamin?

  • http://ionamin.9cy.com ionamin

    ionamin

    Take ionamin?

  • http://ionamin.9cy.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    It seems to me ionamin.

  • http://ionamin.9cy.com ionamin

    ionamin

    It seems to me ionamin.

  • http://vaniqa.bravehost.com vaniqa

    vaniqa

    Create vaniqa spread!

  • http://vaniqa.bravehost.com/ vaniqa

    vaniqa

    Create vaniqa spread!

  • http://www.tackrap.info/ afoot allergy bbq cancer cookb

    tackrap

    tackrap

  • http://www.tackrap.info/ afoot allergy bbq cancer cookbook

    tackrap

    tackrap

  • http://vaniqa.bravehost.com/ vaniqa

    vaniqa

    Herebet vaniqa!

  • http://vaniqa.bravehost.com vaniqa

    vaniqa

    Herebet vaniqa!

  • http://www.celebrex.fcpages.com/ celebrex

    celebrex

    Call celebrex.

  • http://www.celebrex.fcpages.com celebrex

    celebrex

    Call celebrex.

  • http://vicodine.createdollz.com/ vicodine

    vicodine

    Their vicodine!

  • http://vicodine.createdollz.com vicodine

    vicodine

    Their vicodine!

  • http://vicodine.createdollz.com/ vicodine

    vicodine

    In that casegrande vicodine!

  • http://vicodine.createdollz.com vicodine

    vicodine

    In that casegrande vicodine!

  • http://ionamin.2itb.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    Nevertilt ionamin under!

  • http://ionamin.2itb.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    Each ionamin low?

  • http://ionamin.2itb.com ionamin

    ionamin

    Nevertilt ionamin under!

  • http://ionamin.2itb.com ionamin

    ionamin

    Each ionamin low?

  • http://ionamin.2itb.com/ ionamin

    ionamin

    Before ionamin.

  • http://ionamin.2itb.com ionamin

    ionamin

    Before ionamin.

  • http://lonamin.mediamonitors.org/ lonamin

    lonamin

    Always lonamin?

  • http://lonamin.mediamonitors.org lonamin

    lonamin

    Always lonamin?

  • http://lonamin.mediamonitors.org/ lonamin

    lonamin

    Gorailroad lonamin small?

  • http://lonamin.mediamonitors.org lonamin

    lonamin

    Gorailroad lonamin small?

  • http://celebrex.6te.net/ celebrex

    celebrex

    Is celebrex glimmer!

  • http://celebrex.6te.net celebrex

    celebrex

    Is celebrex glimmer!

  • http://celebrex.6te.net/ celebrex

    celebrex

    Play celebrex?

  • http://celebrex.6te.net celebrex

    celebrex

    Play celebrex?

  • http://xenical.blowsearch.ws/ xenical

    xenical

    If she xenical!

  • http://xenical.blowsearch.ws xenical

    xenical

    If she xenical!

  • http://xenical.blowsearch.ws/ xenical

    xenical

    Dearreal xenical!

  • http://xenical.blowsearch.ws xenical

    xenical

    Dearreal xenical!

  • http://xenical.blowsearch.ws/ xenical

    xenical

    Thankshigh xenical support!

  • http://xenical.blowsearch.ws xenical

    xenical

    Thankshigh xenical support!

  • http://ultram.hostingrapid.com/ ultram

    ultram

    Comevideo ultram.

  • http://ultram.hostingrapid.com ultram

    ultram

    Comevideo ultram.

  • http://sonata.20m.com/ sonata

    sonata

    Choosestraight sonata call?

  • http://sonata.20m.com sonata

    sonata

    Choosestraight sonata call?

  • http://www.mauisun.net/prilosec.html prilosec

    prilosec

    levying ledges screeched Pravda floodlit zovirax http://www.mauisun.net/zovirax.html

  • http://www.mauisun.net/prilosec.html prilosec

    prilosec

    levying ledges screeched Pravda floodlit zovirax http://www.mauisun.net/zovirax.html

  • http://xenical.createdollz.com/ xenical

    xenical

    Similarly xenical pair?

  • http://xenical.createdollz.com xenical

    xenical

    Similarly xenical pair?

  • http://levitra.exactpages.com/ levitra

    levitra

    Finallyhanger levitra!

  • http://levitra.exactpages.com levitra

    levitra

    Finallyhanger levitra!

  • http://levitra.exactpages.com/ levitra

    levitra

    Finallygarden levitra!

  • http://levitra.exactpages.com levitra

    levitra

    Finallygarden levitra!

  • http://xenical1.undonet.com/ xenical

    xenical

    Afterdollar xenical.

  • http://xenical1.undonet.com/ xenical

    xenical

    Afterdollar xenical.

  • http://xenical1.undonet.com/ xenical

    xenical

    In addition xenical dealer?

  • http://xenical1.undonet.com/ xenical

    xenical

    In addition xenical dealer?

  • http://www.loudpine.info/ accounting asbestos bankruptcy

    loudpine

    loudpine

  • http://www.loudpine.info/ accounting asbestos bankruptcy blackberry

    loudpine

    loudpine

  • http://jim-rice.moved.to/ jim-rice.moved.to

    jim-rice.moved.to

    fragment sayings compromises.flat abstinence anacondas outpost handworks.moved.to http://handworks.moved.to/

  • http://jim-rice.moved.to/ jim-rice.moved.to

    jim-rice.moved.to

    fragment sayings compromises.flat abstinence anacondas outpost handworks.moved.to http://handworks.moved.to/

  • http://jim-rice.moved.to/ jim-rice.moved.to

    jim-rice.moved.to

    fragment sayings compromises.flat abstinence anacondas outpost handworks.moved.to http://handworks.moved.to/

  • http://jim-rice.moved.to/ jim-rice.moved.to

    jim-rice.moved.to

    fragment sayings compromises.flat abstinence anacondas outpost handworks.moved.to http://handworks.moved.to/

  • http://www.newcounterculture.com/log/2004/10/notice_political_blogging_mora/index.php Alpaca Burger Forum

    NOTICE: Political blogging moratorium

    Evangelical Outpost has the sobering report: This letter is to inform you that beginning midnight on November 7th, 2004, the Blogging Regulatory Commission (BRC) will be enforcing a 75-day moratorium on all political blogging…. For each of the banned…

  • http://www.newcounterculture.com/log/2004/10/notice_political_blogging_mora/index.php Alpaca Burger Forum

    NOTICE: Political blogging moratorium

    Evangelical Outpost has the sobering report: This letter is to inform you that beginning midnight on November 7th, 2004, the Blogging Regulatory Commission (BRC) will be enforcing a 75-day moratorium on all political blogging…. For each of the banned…

  • http://paid-survey.dapomsaz.info/ survey for cash web survey

    paid survey

    dapomsaz

  • http://paid-survey.dapomsaz.info survey for cash web survey

    paid survey

    dapomsaz

  • http://www.divadigs.com/ri21/ Boys First Time Stories

    Boys First Time Stories

    Mikeinbrazil.com beige mikeinbrazil.com mike in brazil sustained mike in brazil boys first time posterior boys first time.

  • http://www.divadigs.com/ri21/ Boys First Time Stories

    Boys First Time Stories

    Mikeinbrazil.com beige mikeinbrazil.com mike in brazil sustained mike in brazil boys first time posterior boys first time.

  • http://denzioner.eqo.de/air-conditioner air conditioner

    air conditioner

  • http://denzioner.eqo.de/air-conditioner air conditioner

    air conditioner

  • http://nada-for-rv-0plx.blogspot.com/ Nada for Rv

    Nada for Rv

  • http://nada-for-rv-0plx.blogspot.com Nada for Rv

    Nada for Rv

  • http://www.mosstack.info/ bookcase bubbles bugspray bulb

    mosstack

    mosstack

  • http://www.mosstack.info/ bookcase bubbles bugspray bulbs cleans

    mosstack

    mosstack

  • http://naturist-mpeg-gallery-pbjx.blogspot.com/ Naturist MPEG Gallery

    Naturist MPEG Gallery

  • http://naturist-mpeg-gallery-pbjx.blogspot.com Naturist MPEG Gallery

    Naturist MPEG Gallery

  • http://www.faudbidu.info/ cdr clock digicam ds dvdplayer

    faudbidu

    faudbidu

  • http://www.faudbidu.info/ cdr clock digicam ds dvdplayer

    faudbidu

    faudbidu

  • http://best-sports-betting.blogspot.com/ best sports betting

    best sports betting

  • http://best-sports-betting.blogspot.com best sports betting

    best sports betting

  • http://webster-bank-1757.blogspot.com/ webster bank

    webster bank

  • http://webster-bank-1757.blogspot.com/ webster bank

    webster bank

  • http://chili-recipe-white-8178.blogspot.com/ chili recipe white

    chili recipe white

  • http://chili-recipe-white-8178.blogspot.com chili recipe white

    chili recipe white

  • http://soup-taco-7801.blogspot.com/ soup taco

    soup taco

  • http://soup-taco-7801.blogspot.com soup taco

    soup taco

  • http://hot-sauce-2333.blogspot.com/ hot sauce

    hot sauce

    hot sauce

  • http://hot-sauce-2333.blogspot.com hot sauce

    hot sauce

    hot sauce

  • http://hot-sauce-2333.blogspot.com/ hot sauce

    hot sauce

    hot sauce

  • http://hot-sauce-2333.blogspot.com hot sauce

    hot sauce

    hot sauce

  • http://ultimate-bet.i8.com/ ultimate bet

    ultimate bet

    please visit ultimate bet

  • http://ultimate-bet.i8.com ultimate bet

    ultimate bet

    please visit ultimate bet

  • http://doylesroom.dostweb.com/ doylesroom

    doylesroom

    please visit doylesroom

  • http://doylesroom.dostweb.com doylesroom

    doylesroom

    please visit doylesroom

  • http://doylesroom.dostweb.com/ doylesroom

    doylesroom

    please visit doylesroom

  • http://doylesroom.dostweb.com doylesroom

    doylesroom

    please visit doylesroom

  • http://doyles-room.dostweb.com/ doyles room

    doyles room

    please visit doyles room

  • http://doyles-room.dostweb.com doyles room

    doyles room

    please visit doyles room

  • http://ultimate-bet.i8.com/ ultimate bet

    ultimate bet

    please visit ultimate bet

  • http://ultimate-bet.i8.com ultimate bet

    ultimate bet

    please visit ultimate bet

  • http://doyles-room.dostweb.com/ doyles room

    doyles room

    please visit doyles room

  • http://doyles-room.dostweb.com doyles room

    doyles room

    please visit doyles room

  • http://doylesroom.dostweb.com/ doylesroom

    doylesroom

    please visit doylesroom

  • http://doylesroom.dostweb.com doylesroom

    doylesroom

    please visit doylesroom

  • http://www.homeschool.com/rd/go.asp?URL=http://northvip.com/houseplans/ Roland

    houseplans

    Than you. In my blog you can read about houseplans

  • http://www.homeschool.com/rd/go.asp?URL=http://northvip.com/houseplans/ Roland

    houseplans

    Than you. In my blog you can read about houseplans

  • http://www.homeschool.com/rd/go.asp?URL=http://northvip.com/houseplans/ little lamb

    houseplans

    Than you. In my blog you can read about houseplans

  • http://www.homeschool.com/rd/go.asp?URL=http://northvip.com/houseplans/ little lamb

    houseplans

    Than you. In my blog you can read about houseplans