A new year, and a new project

I’ve got good news and bad news.

The good news is that my work with the Democrats Abroad UK executive committee is likely to bring about some positive change in their website and the way that DA-UK members use it to coordinate their activities. Hopefully as time goes by we can work on the DA parent website as well and work on unifying the look and feel of the websites across the different countries. We will also be working on improving the way that DA-UK members communicate with each other.

The bad news is that I cannot commit to doing a good job for them and continue to maintain this site as well. Therefore, I will not be adding any new posts to this site from today (barring any exceptional circumstances). I will leave the site up and running so that you can go back and review old posts, and the comments section will remain open on all posts, but I will not be adding any new content.

I thought long and hard about this decision, and it basically came down to two factors: time and relevance.

Firstly, with what looks like a large time commitment to DA-UK, this website would only be getting the leftovers, so to speak, and that isn’t fair on you the audience.

Secondly, I feel that now that Bush has won, this website can only snipe from the sidelines, and it could start to come off as sour grapes. There are plenty of other blogs out there calling the Bush administration out on its missteps and miscarriages, and doing a better job of it to boot.

I am proud of what we achieved with this site and the work that everyone has done, but I am also conscious that this site was symptomatic of a larger issue during this election: the belief that being anti- something is as good as being pro-something else. We of the Anyone But Bush brigade were so focused on getting Bush out that we forgot to tell people what we were going to replace him with. We lost the initiative trying to tell people what we were against rather than what we stood for.

That’s why I believe my work for Democrats Abroad will, in the end, have a better chance of helping us get back in the driver’s seat next time round. I will be helping to get the message out that we are “for the good guys” and not just “against the bad guys”. That is our only shot at taking back the initiative and, ultimately, the country.

I want to leave you all with my sincerest thanks to everyone who has come along for the ride, everyone who has read along, everyone who has posted thousands upon thousands of comments (yes even you right wingers :) ) and especially to everyone that’s helped out over the last year-and-a-bit. You know who you are, and to the UK folks, well, you’re going to be seeing a lot more of me in the flesh.

Thank you all again,
Luke Robinson
Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Comments

[Chrish]

Luke,

Well, ain't that the S__t's!! While I have,
since discovering your site, been one of those who disagreed with many of your positions I never, once, faltered in full support of your freedom to make your statements known. A damn fine job you've done; real damn fine job!!

Quite honestly, I had a feeling this site would soon be set aside for something much bigger than you probably really anticipated
and Good For You.

Perhaps, next time, I will be standing with you in support of who runs next. That, of course, depends upon the message that is going to be delivered. I'm hoping it isn't going to be another "Anybody but" thing which you appear to have come to that realization.

Your statement of "We of the Anyone But Bush brigade were so focused on getting Bush out that we forgot to tell people what we were going to replace him with. We lost the initiative trying to tell people what we were against rather than what we stood for." about sums it all up.

But, that's all water under the brige and tomorrow will bring another day.

You should feel very proud of what you've done, no doubt about that. I will miss the interaction with such people as Sarah, Maryann, JJ, Jeff, Rodi, and those who have come and gone as well as my "cohorts" Jim, and Good Ol' Del. While we have disagreed and on some occassions disagreed with much emphasis I have always held you all in high regard and the deepest respect; even if you were all wrong, :o) , just kidding.

I wish you, Luke and all Expats the very best of luck, triumphs, and success.

Luke, thanks so very much for this site and the opportunity to express my opinions, thoughts, and feelings as well as the opportunity to read, understand, and learn from the individuals who've posted on this site. Thank you all.....
PS: Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your decision Luke? Best of luck to you..

[rodi]

Luke:

I second everything that Chrish said. While I understand that it's probably beating a dead horse to continue the site under the circumstances, I very much enjoy reading and arguing with the regulars.

Like Chrish, I may not agree with a lot of opinions, but the fact that this forum has remained (mostly) a civilized place for all of us to express WHY we justify our thoughts, I consider it a whopping success.

Is there some way those of us that have been posting regularly could contribute in some format on your DA-UK site? (even though I live in canada?) Or, better yet, couuld you tell the dummies at DA-Canada how to improve their site? It really sucks most of the time.

I also hope you can reconsider or offer us some sort of alternative. Yeah, there's hundreds of other blog sites. Many of them also suck and the people who post are so childish or radical, it's not worth trying to have an educated discussion. If not, thanks for the time and effort you ahve put into the site

And Chrish, Jim, jj, Del, maryann, et al:
I'd like to keep in touch with you guys; maybe we can find a similar site to continue onwards. Lord knows we won't run out of topics until at least 2008

Email me directly anytime at
rkap@shaw.ca

PS - If I wasn't HTML illiterate, I'd continue the site myself (perhaps with a different name)
The problem is I'm young enough to know the basics of today's computer-speak, but too old to have the ambition it takes to master website maintenance. I'll leave that to the tech-saavy

Regards from Super Freezing Canada

Have fun Luke

[Chrish]

What Rodi said, absolutely Luke!! How about it can you give any advice on how
say I or Rodi or some other insane person
could do what you have, so admirably, done?

How about Rodi's suggestion that he take over the site with perhaps an occasional "Post for Thought" from you? He is an Expat after all.

Could you also provide us with at least 10 years notice of when this site is shutting down? :o) Hey, its worth a shot.

How about this Luke, you know how they're always having those "Look Back over the years" kinda thing on the Telly? How about
bringing back some of your early days of this site so those who have recently joined can read some of the ravings of the
"Lunatic fringe" or, as some would call them, the real deal, hard core, ultra, Right Wingers?

Rodi, would really like to stay in touch with everyone, if for no other reason, than to explain to you the "error of your ways"..
LOL!!! ;o)

Damn, I am really going to miss reading the posts of everyone here; Luke, maryann, miriamg, jj, Jeff, Rodi, Sarah, Jim, Del, and other's who have gone their way...
Thank you all for the posts, the debates, discussions, the interchange, and, believe it or not, the learning experience. I have learned much from all of you. Oh well....

[rodi]

Chrish:

I also consider the posts a learning experience. Most good sites usually have a few dozen or so regular posters and a lot of lurkers. What I enjoy most is being able to share my viewpoints while listening to the views of others. Listening to others leads to increased tolerance for all and if more Americans would simply learn to be more tolerant, it might improve the nation drastically.

You (and Jim and Del) have earned my utmost respect because you always respect all the non-Bush opinions enough to at least check out the links, books, articles and other stuff that we use to back up our comments.

The site has allowed me to let off an immense amount of steam and it's hilarious when I raed a post from Jeff or Maryann or jj that could have come right out my mouth. My Canadian wife doesn't understand the passion that American politics elicits from all of us, since I currently live in another country. But that's why this site is so important to me, bringing together so many that share an equal passion about so many issues that affect every American around the world.

Education never ends. That's why I read so many non fiction books about political and social events. Those that refuse to listen are doomed to a life of ignorance. sadly, I saw an awful lot of those types on my recent Florida vacation. I can only hope that Luke's message gets through. I am even kind of a hypocrite because I have no political affiliation on my California voter registration and have never claimed to call myself a true Democrat. But I was so appalled but what I read and saw over the first 4 Bush years that I probably would have even supported Howard Dean.

(PS - One last recommendation to all about an excellent work of fiction:
"The Plot Against America" by Pulitzer Prize winner Philip Roth. It's a story about what might have happened had Charles Lindbergh defeated FDR in 1940 and alligned with Hitler instead of the Allies. Awesome piece of writing)

One other note of interest: Did any of you guys who are on Kerry's website mailing list get his message today? Senator Boxer, the California Democrat, has officially challenged the certification of electoral votes, which means by law, each member of Congress gets to speak for 2 minutes in light of the alleged voter fraud in Ohio. It doesn't mean much other than to force the issue to be addressed for future elections and it's only happened 1 other time (in the 1800's, when Harrison defeated Tilden)

Anyway, Kerry says he wants no part of it but at the same time asks us all to continue to make strides towards voting issues that threaten the strength of our system. Sounds kind of wishy washy to me. yeah, I wish that cloned cat could have been Clinton because I think a candidate like him comes around about 3 times in every millennium (ie: FDR, JFK and Billyboy)

And even if the nation wasn't so divided, America has clearly demonstrated that we have still not made enough social progress to ever elect a woman, Jew, African-American, Asian or any other candidate that might challenge the status quo that revolves around money, political lobbies and the small percentage of wealthy Americans that actually control the masses. Maybe some day in my lifetime it may happen, but I'd doubt it.

[delal]

Well - all good things must come to an end! This was always a fun site to stop by and abuse or be abused...

Luke - luck to you! To everyone that have exchanged taunts, ideas, insults and traded similar ideals...

Wishing you the very best!

Del

[delal]

I still say - change the site to:

expatsforbillary.com

And this site will again sprout a life of its own!

I can't help myself...

he-he-he...

Del

[Jim]

Stay tuned for anybodybutjeb.com

It's a great strategy.
:-)

[Jim]

Michael Moore, who sat next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC will be the Democratic Chairman.

Let's have him sit next to a former President, but then say we're distancing ourselves from him. Great strategy.

Better strategy than say having a convicted fraud like Ahmad Chalabi sit next to the President's wife during the State of the Union only to raid his offices only a few months later...

[Jim]

Huh?? Who won the election?

[Jeff]

Good comeback... much better than trying to defend what is indefensible and moronic to boot. He should have a 65% approval rating and have won by that type of margin after proving that his way is the best way and getting the whole country and the rest of the world behind him.

Just keep forgiving the incompetence, have your AG be someone who couldn't figure out that Kerik couldn't obey immigration laws within his own house or avoid using 9/11 apartments for committing adultery.

[Mark]

Which is more important, Bush's victory in the election or a war that is spiralling out of control? The insurgency is obviously getting stronger, General Metz says that we're in no shape to hold an election and that huge areas of four provinces containing 1/2 of the population are unsafe. Rummy has dispatched General Luck (great name) to figure out what the hell is going wrong.

I'm glad Bush won... no one could save us from what's going to happen, so it might as well be the moron who created the mess.

[Jim]

Thanks for brightening up my day. :-) Still loving it.

[rodi]

Here's a little more great news to brighten up your day even more, Jim:

On the topic of American troops in Iraq, the other day I heard my buddies on NBC Nightly News report that since the Iraquis are nowhere near training an army that can safely support the country, the Pentagon now estimates that US troops will need to be in Iraq for
FIVE MORE YEARS !!

Yeah,
great job, W

(great quote, too.)
"Well, I think the Iraq situtaiion is going quite well, we're having an election, after all."

In response to Richard Gere's weird TV advertisement, "One Gaza soap factory worker interviewed by Reuters, Manar an-Najar, was quoted saying: "I don't even know who the candidates are other than Abu Mazen, let alone this Gere. We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them – they elected a moron."

[Jim]

at this rate, we could end up being in Korea, Japan and Germany for 5 more years too.

At this rate, we could suffer so many casualties and run so far out of money that we lose after being forced to turn tail and run.

[miriamg]

More good news. Just heard that the government is considering (read: is already planning) the use of El Salvador-style death squads in Iraq.
So we can look forward to this kind of thing... (Source: The UN Truth Commission on El Salvador.)

"..the soldiers reassembled the entire population in the square. They separated the men from the women and children and locked everyone up in different groups in the church, the convent and various houses... they proceeded to interrogate, torture and execute the men in various locations. Around noon, they began taking the women in groups, separating them from their children and machine-gunning them. Finally, they killed the children. A group of children who had been locked in the convent were machine-gunned through the windows. After exterminating the entire population, the soldiers set fire to the buildings."

..as just one teeny example. I'm sure everyone has their own personal favorite stories from that era, such as the murder of Archbishop Romero. And remember the nuns who were raped & killed?

"During 1982 and 1983, approximately 8,000 civilians a year were being killed by government forces. Although the figure is less than in 1980 and 1981, targeted executions as well as indiscriminate killings nonetheless remained the policy of the military and internal security forces, part of what Professor William Stanley of the University of New Mexico has described as a "strategy of mass murder" designed to terrorize the civilian population as well as opponents of the government." (Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Service)

Let freedom ring.

On that note, I leave you all to enjoy the next four years.

[Jim]

Personally I'm pulling for the nuclear option. Though I heard a Pakistani newspaper already reported that we used them, so what the hey!

[Chrish]

Whoa Miriamg, don't pull your punches. You
bring up some very, very valid points. At
first I thought that that idea wasn't a bad one but, on retrospect I don't see how a repeat of those kinds of things could be of benefit.

The only thing I can see that might happen is that some terrorists would be hit but, would then start extending to innocent civilians. It would be passed onto whoever comes to power and be perpetuated. More death squads, more murders, more violence all sanctioned by the Government? Rationale (excuses and justifications) would be they're terrorists and insurgents instead of they're Communists. Didn't the policy of Our government essentially say it was better to have a dictator in power rather than a Communist one? Never mind if that dictatorship was murdering, raping, and brutalizing their people. Sadly, Our government turned a blinds eye to it. Couldn't the same thing occur here?

We would then truly be no better than them.
Bad idea, very bad idea.....

Jim, sorry but, {no name} has a point; Ahmad
Chalabi did sit next to the President's wife during the State of the Union and his
offices were raided a few months later...the
rest is history.

The DNC had a Moore and the RNC had a Chalabi. I don't see that there's anything to be really proud of except maybe, disagree or agree with Moore he was trying to make a difference even if his methods were rather transparent. Chalabi's, on the other hand, are more suspect and would seem to be more for personal gain; the new Hussein?

One has to look at what's going on over there in Iraq now and wonder "Does the President or his administration really know
what's going on and do they really have any
idea what to do?". I heard today that some new group in Iraq has put out a warning that something like 11 targets, all civilian, will be hit if they go out and vote. Yes, I know it should make everyone more determined but, at what cost and who's going to pay the cost? If its the Iraqi people than they have to be the ones to make that decision not us nor pressure from us. I can understand the need to have the elections BUT, are they really ready to have those elections or is this one of those "by hook or by crook" kind of things?
Would it really be so bad to wait until they've settled things down more? I wonder.

[miriamg]

Sorry, should have put in some context. After all, the ends justify the means when it comes to the fight for freedom, right?
Well, here are the means:

From the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador:

"These death squads were partially home-grown... But crucial too was the activity of the United States government, specifically through the CIA. Testimony from Salvadoran army officials reveals that the CIA involved them in regular briefings, trained them in torture methods, provided a monthly budget and even funded little expenses like having black window panes installed on vans so that executions and the like could be carried out in secret. One former officer named Richard Castro described how, after training with the US, he had been told by his fellow officers of two towns that had been captured, each with a population of roughly three hundred. He was told that its inhabitants would be tortured for information, then executed. He later discovered that all six hundred had been killed. According to Rene Hurtado, who worked as an intelligence agent for the Treasury Police (one of three Salvadoran paramilitary forces) before fleeing to Minnesota, the US had taught interesting torture techniques to his colleagues at Army Staff headquarters. In particular favour among torture methods were electric shock, suffocation, mutilation, the tearing of skin from the body and sticking needles into the flesh. He also describes the use of US-manufactured torture equipment, including something that looked like a radio "with General Electric written on it". Witnesses describe how Colonel Nicolas Carranza, who took to death squad activity with unusual facility and enthusiasm, was funded by the CIA to the tune of $90,000 a year. The Atlacatl Battalion, created under US pressure, was responsible for some of the worst atrocities, including the murder of Jesuit priests and the El Mozote massacre."

Yet more of the means:
(From TheNew Yorker, Dec 1993, "The Truth of El Mozote":)
"Captain Salazar was shrugging off a guide's timid plea for the children's lives. "If we don't kill them now," he said angrily, "they'll just grow up to be guerrillas. We have to take care of the job now...
They slit some of the kids' throats, and many they hanged from the tree. All of us were crying now, but we were their prisoners -- there was nothing we could do. The soldiers kept telling us, 'You are guerrillas and this is justice. This is justice.' Finally, there were only three of us left. I watched them hang my brother. He was two years old. I could see I was going to be killed soon, and I thought it would be better to die running, so I ran. I slipped through the soldiers and dived into the bushes. They fired into the bushes, but none of their bullets hit me...
There was one in particular the soldiers talked about that evening (she is mentioned in the Tutela Legal report as well): a girl on La Cruz whom they had raped many times during the course of the afternoon, and through it all, while the other women of El Mozote had screamed and cried as if they had never had a man, this girl had sung hymns, strange evangelical songs, and she had kept right on singing, too, even after they had done what had to be done, and shot her in the chest."

No more.

[Jim]

Chrish,

With all respect, my point was that the Democratic strategy failed. I'm not nor did I ever defend Chalabi, but he wasn't at the convention. My point was, the President won the election, so who is the party that really needs to look at what they did wrong (in the election).

Delaying the elections is the second worst thing we could do, behind us cutting and running now. We will never kill all of the terrorists. What an election will do is prove to the people that most of the country believes in democracy over terrorism. An election will decrease the recruiting of terrorists. The terrorists and those that support them (Iran and Syria) are making one last stand. An election will be there greatest defeat.

Yes, let freedom ring!!

[miriamg]

Chrish - No, I don't pull my punches. I put up that second post before I saw yours, so I'm not trying to keep putting up graphic descriptions to upset you, as I know you're already very aware of the horrors our government has sponsored in Central America in the past.

I put them up so that anyone who's tempted to think, as you said, "Well, something's got to be done to get the insurgents/terrorists, a few civilians might get killed, but well, that's the price of freedom" will be very much aware that death squads ARE terrorists, in the absolute worst way possible.

I put them up so that no one reading this can say they weren't warned about what death squads are capable of.

If reports come back from Iraq about such incidents, the blood will be on our hands. Posting this on a blog is the least I can do to salve my conscience - and I didn't even vote for Bush, or this war.

[Jim]

The "death squads" so called, are simply what some people think might happen. I doubt there is a huge cheering section of people saying, "yeah, let's go out and kill civilians"

http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/

[Chrish]

Jim,

It was reported, I believe, on Fox News that the CIA was considering the use of so-called "death" squads as a means to go after the terrorists. The question being posed was rather or not that would include the leaders.

Now, considering what Miriamg just posted on the subject and one that I consider to be one of our worst moments in history done by Our government in Our name, needs to be
brought up.

We all know how things go:
1) We startup so-called death squads.
2) We're "somewhat" successful and decide
to hand it over to the Iraqi government.
3) The Iraqi government hands the task over
to some internal group, with an innocent enough sounding name like "Iraqi Internal Security Force" or IISF.
4) A period of time passes with some success and then reports start coming out that the "IISF" has been involved in countless number of murders under some BS guidance for Iraqi Security. Which also happens to be very similar to Husseins guidelines for his Republican Guard which equates to murder, raping, and slaughter of innocent people...

Surely, you know that or have an inkling that something like that would happen? Worst of all it would have been created and started by us. We don't need to create a monster like that. We don't need to repeat history. It didn't work in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicarqua, Cuba, or other South American countries it won't work in Iraq. If anything it would only make things far, far worse than it is now. It would truly make us no better than the terrorists or insurgents.

[Jim]

Chrish,

I'm not disagreeing with you or Miriamg. But it seems we're now criticizing the government for things it has not done yet (using death squads in Iraq). Let's see what really happens. I have not problems with people sending up red flags,, but let's not assume this is already being done.

[miriamg]

Chrish - you've put it better than I ever could, thank you.

Good luck and all the best, guys.

this is why people hate America

http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1211

[Jim]

Things people love to hate:

Bill Gates
America
Walmart
The Yankees

[Jeff]

That's exactly what I'm talking about Chrish. See you analyze and do your best to present facts... therefore you belong to a realm where you can either convince others or be convinced by others.

Jim on the other hand... the conclusions are based on... nothing. It's blame everyone else because I'm the only one who's sane and turn my nose at all criticism because I couldn't possibly be wrong.

Funny thing is that I am American, shop often at Walmart when I'm in the U.S., and my son is employed by Microsoft! But since I don't like Bush, I must hate them all... and all of our troops too, despite having two friends among them in Iraq.

Just a few wayward soldiers claimed the Bushies... yet you think you can trust this government to do what's right with regard to death squads... or anything else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6803421/site/newsweek/

"Many of the FBI accounts came from conscience-stricken agents troubled by what they had witnessed. One agent reported seeing a detainee sitting on the floor of an interrogation cell with an Israeli flag draped around him while he was bombarded by loud music and a strobe light—almost exactly what Al Qosi had alleged. Another reported seeing detainees chained hand and foot in fetal positions, in barren cells with no chair, food or water.

In one account that seemed to parallel the sickening scenes from Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, an FBI agent reported the way in which a female U.S. Army sergeant sexually humiliated a shackled male prisoner during Ramadan and even "grabbed his genitals."

[Chrish]

Jim,

I hear what you're saying and am, by no means, criticizing the government, even if that is my right to, but, from what history has shown it is better to raise red flag(s) now rather than wait and see if the talk comes to pass. Who's to say, after all, that while we're waiting to see what happens they've already gone and done it?

You only have to look back in history, and not too many years ago, to see where members of Our government were involved in some rather underhanded shenannigans. Consider ContraGate and, the one that started it all, Watergate, and the many "death squads" that ran rampant in the South American countries come to mind. I'm sure those went through a genesis from idea, to plan, to action.

What you're seeing or reading regarding the "hit squads" or "death squads" is the idea. Question now is will the idea go to the plan, then to action? Worse yet,
is if this goes "underground" similar to how Contragate, Watergate and others were done.

Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in office it is always imperative that We, the people, be watchful of what Our elected officials are doing. Doesn't matter if it's a Bush, a Kerry, Clinton, Gore or whomever.

Democracy is not putting people in office and then sitting back and believing they will do what is right. That's a fool's attitude and God knows We've been there and done that. Democracy is maintaining that watchfulness over what Our leaders are doing or not doing and calling them on the carpet when they get out of line; yanking their chains or raising red flag(s). If, for no other reason, than to let them know they are being watched.

With such far reaching issues as what's going on in Iraq and elsewhere We cannot afford to let those politicians believe they can do as they please. This is especially true when the talk is about such ideas as "hit squads" or "death squads".

Jim is an idiot. He should be shot

maybe we can tell the death squads that Jim has some WMD and since they are so desperate to come up with anything, they'll storm his house and take care of him. After all, he's the big fan of them.

[rodi]

Although the death squads may not actually pan out as they have in the past, history has clearly shown that even if it does happen, Bush will have carte blanche.

Reagan was caught red-handed in the Contra mess and never answered to anyone. In fact, now that he’s dead, nobody ever so much as mentions all the evil acts perpetrated in his administration in the name of "freedom"

Bush was handed a blank check. Case in point from today's headlines:
====================================
White House says Iraq weapons search is over

Wednesday, January 12, 2005
(01-12) 11:16 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said.
===========================================

So let's recap:
Once the election is over, they come out and say "thanks for electing me even though I've been full of shit for four years."

While I agree with the points about watching over our elected officials, let's be brutally honest. I've heard nothing but Democratic Senators arguing and complaining that Bush needs to explain this and justify that, yada , yadda, yadda.

56 million Americans overruled our right to question the government's actions by reelecting the most dangerous president in the history of the USA. Like my bumper sticker says, "Don’t blame me; I didn't vote for the idiot."

Chrish
Again, you speak elequently and are my favorite eternal optimist but I just don;t see Bush answering to anyone (except his version of God)
No matter how pointless an election may be considering the circumstances, he believes that God sent him to the White House to spread his version of "freedom and democracy at all costs".

I'm not Bush bashing; I'm being realistic. At this point we might as well let them have their election since they've already admitted that troops will be there even after Bush is an ex-president.

Ignorance amongst most of the general population will never cesae to amaze me so why start making any sense now?

[Chrish]

First to the {no name} who apparently is
no better than the right wing moron's that
ranted and raved on this site in its early
days. Name calling and idle threats?? Is
that really the best argument or presentation of your ideas, opinions, or
thoughts? Wow, its like reading a right wingers post. You've sunk to the level of those whom you condemn or are you really a
closet red state, ultra-right winger?

Rodi,

"56 million Americans overruled our right to question the government's actions? Sorry
guy, I disagree with that assessment. It sounds as if you're saying the concept of majority rule is not valid unless it goes "our", whoever "our's" is, way. Is that what you're saying?

Incidentally, while Bush did win by majority rule it still was not a landslide!
Meaning to say that he won by a slight margin. That, to me, does not mean "a mandate".

Now, while those so-called political clowns in the DNC are busy with their navel gazing and the scratching of their political heads or arses maybe they could also take a look around and listen to what the People really want and are saying. Instead of trying to figure out how to re-market themselves and busying themselves with telling Us what We want and need they started doing what We want for what We need.

While they're at it they could also get off their sorry asses, quit feeling sorry for themselves, and start doing their jobs. If that means telling the President "No" rather than what he wants to hear, "Yes", and present probable or highly possible alternatives and why to Us, perhaps something might turn around?

Haven't you noticed how whenever and I mean whenever a Republican presents a bill that sounds good the Democrats automatically say no, no, no we have our own bill. Conversely whenver the Democrats present a bill that also sounds good the Republicans also say no, no, no we have our own bill. Then all the usual political BS and fear tactics come to play instead of those intellectual giants" sitting down and working out their differences? It doesn't take a rocket science to see what makes common sense or how to lose the bad while keeping the good and you have to know that neither side is completely right just as neither side is completely wrong.

Yes Rodi, I do believe they have to be constantly watched and kept in line. To not do so only sets up a repeat of previous administrations and or Senators, Representatives to do what they do more often than not; lie, cheat, steal, and
play politics when they should be doing the People's will.

Our troops staying in Iraq should come as no surprise even Kerry admitted during his campaigns that he would send in more troops
and they would be there for a while. That's nothing new. Honestly now, assuming Kerry had won and he turned around sent in more troops to Iraq and announced that they would be there for some time how would you feel then? The same as you do towards Bush or it's OK, he's My President, my President and my party; right or wrong?

It's sad and I don't like it but, Bush never said it would be easy nor that it would be a few months. Let's keep that in mind; agree or disagree.

Yes Rodi, I am the eternal optimist but, I'm not falling all over myself while "Singing in the Rain". I don't, so much, have faith in Our government or those who run Our government but, I do have faith in Our people. Sooner or later they do, however damnable slow they are, finally wake up to things and begin pushing for changes. All the more reason that folks like yourself, Luke, and the Expats are, in your own way, the voices of reason. While everyone's jumping on their horses to go after the bad guys you're saying "wait a minute, what're ya doin?". It's also called
"Food for Thought".

Jim and Del also, in their own way, present their own "Food for Thought". Agree or disagree with us but, we also raise questions, pose thoughts for you, take it or leave it, and yes, we disagree on many issues. Isn't that what discussion, dialog, debates, and Democracy are all about?

"Bush never said it would be easy." Chrish, no politician has ever come out and said that something would be easy. That's a no-win statement and I can't believe that you're giving him any credit for it. At least if you say that it's hard and it turns out easy, you can be everyone's hero.

Read between the lines, will you? The Bushies said that the war would cost $50 billion, it's costing $300 billion and climbing. They said that we needed less troops... well now we need more. They said that oil would pay for reconstruction, but it's the oil companies that are showing record profits while the deficit is at record highs. Translation... it's going to be easy.

Please, name something important that Bush has been right about. Anything? You think that all this is about hating Bush, but seriously what has predicted correctly? Abu Ghraib was suppose to be the work of a few renegade soldiers, but now every day, we're learning that abuse was widespread and rampant. Wasn't the insurgency supposed to be the last vestige of desperate Baathists? How come we don't hear the term dead ender anymore? Could it be that dead enders shouldn't be able to blow up soldiers in heavily guarded areas and fully armored tanks and kill governors?

So you say that Kerry couldn't have done better... maybe, it's a freaking impossible situation. Yet you trust the idiot who got us into this fiasco to lead us out? Unbelievable.

Remember how you were cheering the "handover" of Iraqi sovereignty? Let the freedom bells ring you all said. Some realists wrote that it was a sham because an American stooge was prime minister and there was no security. But we were branded pessimists and unpatriotic. So who was right and who was wrong?

Forget about political ideology, you've hitched your wagon to a bunch of people who are incompetent and who have been wrong so many times that it would be embarrassing if the mistakes didn't kill and weren't still killing so many people. Instead, it's a tragedy. I pity the ignorance.

[Jeff]

"Bush never said it would be easy." Chrish, no politician has ever come out and said that something would be easy. That's a no-win statement and I can't believe that you're giving him any credit for it. At least if you say that it's hard and it turns out easy, you can be everyone's hero.

Read between the lines, will you? The Bushies said that the war would cost $50 billion, it's costing $300 billion and climbing. They said that we needed less troops... well now we need more. They said that oil would pay for reconstruction, but it's the oil companies that are showing record profits while the deficit is at record highs. Translation... it's going to be easy.

Please, name something important that Bush has been right about. Anything? You think that all this is about hating Bush, but seriously what has predicted correctly? Abu Ghraib was suppose to be the work of a few renegade soldiers, but now every day, we're learning that abuse was widespread and rampant. Wasn't the insurgency supposed to be the last vestige of desperate Baathists? How come we don't hear the term dead ender anymore? Could it be that dead enders shouldn't be able to blow up soldiers in heavily guarded areas and fully armored tanks and kill governors?

So you say that Kerry couldn't have done better... maybe, it's a freaking impossible situation. Yet you trust the idiot who got us into this fiasco to lead us out? Unbelievable.

Remember how you were cheering the "handover" of Iraqi sovereignty? Let the freedom bells ring you all said. Some realists wrote that it was a sham because an American stooge was prime minister and there was no security. But we were branded pessimists and unpatriotic. So who was right and who was wrong?

Forget about political ideology, you've hitched your wagon to a bunch of people who are incompetent and who have been wrong so many times that it would be embarrassing if the mistakes didn't kill and weren't still killing so many people. Instead, it's a tragedy. I pity the ignorance.

it is all to steel oil

Prof uf Bush idiocy

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/526/526_01_Elections.shtml

[Chrish]

Other than "The scheme is to use Kurdish and Shia paramilitaries in conjunction with U.S. Special Forces in order to liquidate the Sunni resistance--and drive a wedge between insurgents and their sympathizers. So it’s no coincidence that John Negroponte--who served as U.S. ambassador to Honduras during Ronald Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America--has taken over as ambassador in Iraq.", which, I pointed out
earlier am I supposed to take this article
seriously?

I was blasted once for posting an article that was from a site that was to the right
what's the difference here?

The elections are only recently over and already, just like here in the US, the spectre of "conspiracy" and "fraud" are being raised? Give me a break.

So Jeff, assuming you are correct what would you want done? Immediate withdrawal,
leave the Iraqi's to themselves, let them be assimilated by the Iranian's, or, perhaps, let Hussein go and rebuild his Republican Guard?

Again, Kerry stated during his campaign that he would put more troops into Iraq.
And yes, I still believe that it will be accomplished.

As far as Bush being an idiot no more so than Clinton being an ass. Clinton had his chance to have prevented this whole thing *from ever* happening where was he and what was he doing? For that matter where was the rest of the Democratic Party and what were they doing? They were in control.

You may say "don't bring that crap up as Bush has been in office for four years.". True enough but, it was not Bush who set the stage for a 9/11 to happen. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Of course, one could also say that it's also Bush Sr.'s fault since he had the chance to take out Saddam with, in all probability, full support of the majority of Iraqi's but, mucked that one up as well.

What's interesting about all of this finger pointing is that none of them are pointed towards those who have and are committing the attacks, the beheadings, the murder-suicide attacks, the Al Qaida's, nor those countries or governments that are and have been supporting and backing them.

Oh, I'm sorry, that would be beneath you and not worthy of any words nor protest from you. Isn't that what you say?

[Jeff]

Chrish,

After all this time and debate, I can hardly believe what I'm hearing in your response. I don't want to offend you, but I really think it's way off point. I'll try my best to explain:

"As far as Bush being an idiot no more so than Clinton being an ass."

This may be true, but it doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. You're acting like a kid who's been caught in the wrong and saying that it's not wrong because your brother did the same thing. Clinton is gone... when people stop dying maybe we can spend time looking at the sins of past presidents. Assuming what you say is true, that Clinton was an ass, how does that justify replacing him with a moron?

"Clinton had his chance to have prevented this whole thing *from ever* happening where was he and what was he doing?"

Whoa, that's quite a stretch there. When Bush screws up, you tell me that he can't be responsible since he's the one giving orders and not carrying them out. But suddenly when it's Clinton, it's like he trained the 9/11 hijackers himself. Again, irrelevant... how the hell does blaming Clinton, Bush Sr., Nixon, etc. help us now? At worst, if Clinton as you say was responsible for the deaths of 3,000+ people on 9/11, at the very least, I'm sure you could say it was involuntary. Bush voluntarily initiated a conflict that has cost several times that in death, money, and reputation... and the worst could be yet to come.

"What's interesting about all of this finger pointing is that none of them are pointed towards [terrorists and supporters]."

You're crazy if you think that fingers aren't pointed at terrorists... if I'm not mistaken, all of our guns are supposed to be pointed at the terrorists, which I fully support. I think that's quite a bit more forceful than using my finger.

But here's the problem... are you sure that we're pointing the guns at the right people? Why didn't we use maximum force to kill al-Qaida, the Taliban, Mullah Omar, and Osama Bin Laden, the people we knew were behind 9/11? Have we killed more Iraqi civilians than terrorists, creating lots of angry bitter people who become new terrorists? If not, how do you explain that things seem to be getting worse and worse? And hey, while we took out one oppressive regime, all the oil sheiks who are nearly as oppressive as Saddam are still our best friends!

If it was so easy to blame the terrorists, we would have launched a few nuclear weapons and been done with it. Unfortunately, it takes some thought to invade and occupy an entire country and it's obvious that this thought was missing because the Bushies were dead wrong about virtually everything.

Go back to my original post Chrish... I note that you have not been able to counter any of the charges that I made to Bush's integrity and competence. Instead, the blame is always on someone else. Man, I would love to be your employee, all I would have to do to avoid judgment on my job performance is to blame my predecessor or blame the weather. Or maybe I could always win your support by telling you that things are getting better despite the reality that they're getting worse.

It's not even that I'm against the principles behind invading Iraq. If there were WMD or if Saddam were in bed with Osama, or if the war was winnable within $50 billion (and the corresponding number of deaths) or any of the things that we were told, then maybe all would be well.

But that's not how it turned out and the President should have known better. This is not debatable. I have been on you for nearly a year to read Iraq On The Record and you haven't bothered. You certainly have the time to write pages and pages of eloquent argument on this site. What are you scared of? The truth?

You ask me what I would do... I have some ideas, but I really can't tell you. I'm an expert on certain areas of law. I'm not an expert on terrorism, I'm not an expert on Iraq, I'm not an expert on WMD, and I'm not an expert on warfare. But an incredible number of people who are the foremost experts in these critical fields have told the President that he's wrong and he refused to listen.

Therefore, I have no confidence in him, the same no confidence that John McCain has for Donald Rumsfeld, but was too chicken to say so before the election. Oh, but I guess since McCain is pointing the finger at Rummy, I guess he's not pointing the finger at terrorists...

[Mark]

Whoa, newsflash. Bush admits mistake and regrets his "cowboy" language and wishes he had been more diplomatic. In fact, he reveals that Laura actually chewed him out for it. Obviously, we have to conclude that because the First Lady criticized the President that she loves Saddam and hates Iraqi people.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824011/

In related news, the CIA says the Iraq war created a breeding ground for terrorists who weren't there before us. Of course, they warned Bush of the high likelihood before... now it's a reality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6823913/

[rodi]

Mark:

Thanks for pointing out the latest intelligent realization from The Illustrious One. I find it very aggravating that Bush keeps feeling pressured into admitting his lack of leadership, character flaws, and disguised agendas almost on a daily basis. Look how much has come out before he's even re-inaugurated.

I'm powerless to understand how anyone can continue to support an agenda that keeps getting worse by the minute.

Chrish:
I agree with Jeff on his latest post about some of your comments. On blaming Clinton, I reiterate the facts presented in "Against All Enemies". The blame for 9/11 and the increase in terrorism lies with 4 presidents beginning with Reagan. Please re-examine the facts that led us to where we are now.

>I don't, so much, have faith in Our government or those who run Our government but, I do have faith in Our people.

American history has shown that it takes at least several years engaged in active combat until Americans really tire of conflict. According to the Pentagon, troops will need to be there 5 more years. Anyone who thinks this entire fiasco won't be judged as another huge mistake by then is nuts.

Obviously, we learned absolutely nothing from Vietnam, even though it's universally accepted that the Johnson/Nixon administration lied and committed a huge error in judgment. At least Communist support didn't increase during Vietnam unlike terrorism in Iraq. Bush is laying the groundwork for an unstoppable network of terrorism to thrive in a war-torn environment where the half the people are scared to go to work, never mind voting.

What annoys me even more than Americans turning a blind eye to Bush policies is how powerless the nation remains for the next four years. Our "people" decided that moral values and "homeland security" were more important than Americans dying needlessly in Iraq. Neither issue has anything to do with an Iraqi election. No matter what Kerry might have done, I venture to say that keeping troops there til 2009 would not have been one of the options, particularly in the face of never ending reports from the CIA and other government agencies pointing to an INCREASE in terrorist activity in Iraq.

This is the reality:
America is becoming so conservative in the current generation that we're leaning towards a one party system. NBC did another story last night from Minnesota, making specific references to show how a traditionally Democratic state is almost certain to change red by 2008. To pound the point home, they show families buying subdivsions in what used to be farmland, making sure to profile a family with 2 kids that claims to be "staunch Bush supporters that favor tax cuts, homeland security and are intensely against gay marriage.

How do you expect the DNC, or anyone else, to initiate real change when the media constantly points out their unbridled support for the moron they re-elected? An uniformed and ignorant public that instills patriotism at all costs and preaches intolerance to its children is bound to remain with the status quo.

There's not even anything left to debate. Article after article keep pointing out that Bush refused to acknowledge the facts then and will continue to live in his little patriotic freedom-loving wonderland until 2008. God, wake the f*** up, America. Even if you choose to call yourself conservative, anti-gay, and patriotic, for God's sake, at least stop supporting a notorious liar.

How much longer are we going to be in Korea? I am so tired of that conflict too.

[Jim]

You're right. We are just about a one party system right now. Everytime those Damned Republicans get 51% of the vote it just proves we're becoming one party. woo hoo!

[Jim]

It's just like Vietnam. There was a hell of a lot of fighting all the way up to the Vietnam elections.

[Steve]

Vietnam elections?

[rodi]

Jim

It doesn't matter if Bush won by 1 percent or one vote. What matters is the attitudes of the people and they continue to turn a blind eye to the lies as well as swinging right of center.

Are you also so blind to the facts ?????
Why do you continue to support Bush, but not any of the thousands of other members of the US government that keep exposing the reality of the mess?

Instaed of debating why you think my Vietnam references are incorrect, you just mock me, typical of most Bush supporters.

Do you even know anything about Vietnam or US political hostory or are you just speaking out of ignorance like most Americans?

[rodi]

Chrish

The answer to your previous question about what we should do about Iraq:
How about let them solve their own problems as a sovereign nation, good, bad or indifferent?

The ONLY justification for occupation of a country is a PROVEN and imnminent threat to American interests. No such threat existed from Saddam (proven) and insurgents reside all over the world, not just in Iraq.

NOT OUR PROBLEM and not our job to police the world anymore. The Iron Curtain fell.
Fighting terrorism is not possible while occupying a nation in the name of "freedom and democracy." It proves NOTHING other than the fact that the US boasts the world's largest military.

[Chrish]

I assumed the answer from you would be to cut and run. Seems to me that's what we did back when we had the opportunity to really have the majority of the Iraqi people rise up against Hussein. Who knows,
maybe they would even have had enough courage to fight their own damn fight knowing we were backing them up?

It truly amazes me how often the terms "ignorant", "idiots", "morons", "racists", "some-phobic", and other niceities are used whenever people disagree with your position or vote what they believe is right. You always talk about Democracy, Power to the People, bah bah bah
but, when The People vote against your beliefs or position then they're put down
and called names.

"NOT OUR PROBLEM"? So where were you and the others when Clinton was bombing in that Slavic country? I don't recall seeing any protests, demonstrations, etc. Why was there a big stink about the amount of money that Bush initially offered for Tsunammi Aid if, according to you, it's "NOT OUR PROBLEM"? By the way did you note that even with our best intentions we're being thrown out of Indonesia? Our military was
doing something constructive as opposed to something destructive.

Is this really about your points or really about your obsessive hatred for Bush and for people who do make decisions based upon their moral values? And what is so earth shattering about having moral values?

[Chrish]

If things continue in this country, ILLEGAL immigration, as they are it won't really matter.

E pluribus unum!!!..or else...

Subject: Road to Destruction

by Gov. Lamm

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant.

Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malyasia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: "Invent 'multi-culturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

"We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'" Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."

"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- >From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'zenophobe' halt discussion and debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/ bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.'

American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

HAPPY HOLIDAY, REPLACES, MERRY CHRISTMAS???

(Ed. note) This morning I had a call from a person in a business that deals with a wide variety of folks. At the end of the conversation she said, "HAPPY HOLIDAYS," I said, "no, not happy holidays, MERRY CHRISTMAS to you." You should have heard her voice brighten, and respond back to me with a hearty, MERRY CHRISTMAS, to you too....." Makes ya wonder, huh????

[miriamg]

Wow, the ignorance & fear underlying that speech is shocking.

Bilingual/bicultural? Last I looked, Belgium, Canada, and France were coping pretty well. He left out Switzerland which has FOUR languages & cultures - and yet somehow is a paragon of stability.

The problem is with post-colonial societies, where the former colonizers had favored one ethnic group over the other; also, where borders are drawn without sensitivity to regional populations. After independence, these hostilities come out and some ethnic groups find they're separated from the rest of their population and thrown in with a larger, sometimes hostile group. That's exactly what happened in Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Rwanda and throughout Africa & the Middle East and Yugoslavia. It's not multiculturalism in itself which is a problem, but governments who discriminate and exploit fears and old resentments among ethnic groups.

As for this Merry Christmas bollocks - really, it's just polite to say Happy Holidays. As a Jew, I found it nice if people acknowledge our holidays at that time along with their own. Oh, and by the way, I do send Christmas cards every year (albeit ones without Baby Jesus so my hyper-religious grandparents don't roll in their graves) and say to people "Merry Christmas" when I know they celebrate it.

Great, Chrish. Rather than tell us a single thing that Bush got right, you post some sinister, ignorant drivel about the hordes of immigrants out to destroy us and how diversity is bad. Where have I heard that before?

Two quotes from the same person.

"Instaed of debating why you think my Vietnam references are incorrect, you just mock me, typical of most Bush supporters"

"Do you even know anything about Vietnam or US political hostory or are you just speaking out of ignorance like most Americans"

Any hypocricy here?

I feel so bad that many of you have become exactly what you claim to hate.

[Jim]

Well said Chrish. Thanks for posting the speech. So true.

Trying to please all cultures and languages rather than make immigrants assimilate to the American culture is both insulting to the immigrants and prevents them from succeeding. Bilingual education in a English speaking country is a disservice. Yes, it's great for people to be bilingual, but to avoid teaching the main language of the country in order to be nice to the immigrants, is actually a disservice. Why do so many people immigrate to America if it's such an aweful place anyway? Let's teach Ebonics in the schools, that will help disadvantaged black kids get ahead.

Let's call anyone who has a differing view from the left, an idiot. Let's call them stupid and uninformed.
http://www.republicofwesterncanada.com/taletwocountries.html
Interesting site for those who worship Canada.

Why did Athenia, the worlds first great democracy fall apart?

[Jeff]

Chrish, nice job in addressing the issues which we were debating... NOT. Since you can't account for or answer for any of your administration's failings, I guess turning off your brain is the most convenient thing to do.

[miriamg]

Jeff - and with the classic projection so typical of Bushies, WE'LL be the ones accused of "bait and switch".

I lifted this from the KKK website. Sounds eerily like Crish's beliefs (and Jim's as well.)

"While MTV has their "Fight for Your Rights" - homosexual and race mixing campaign -there are still numerous young people who will fight for the right to be "White and Proud"! Whether they're in the North, South, East or West, the heritage of white Christians is under attack..."

Excuse me while I go shoot me a faggot or nigger or something else impure, maybe a mexican.

[Jim]

Yes, you've got it, I am a racist. Gotta run. Late for my Klan meeting. I love when Republicans say they believe in equal rights, Democrats call that racist.

Chrish, don't you know that you never answered Jeff's argument.
Jeff, do you ever have anything else to say other thatn, "Nice job Chrish (or Jim or Del) but you didn't answer my argument. Yawn.

[Jim]

That's a really sick post by anonymous. Of course nobody on the left will disagree with it. What else is new. So sad.

Chrish:

Once again, I'm a little surprised at the article you posted, partially because it seems like kind of a radical viewpoint for your taste and secondly because (as Jeff pointed out)it is off-topic from the past few arguments/debates. However, I must admit I found it entertaining. Not necessarily in a positive way, however.

I guess Mr. Lamm forgot that America is a nation of immigrants with the exception of the native population that was already here when the Europeans ravaged their land. Making an argument that multi-culturism is the downfall of America is so outlandish, I don't even know how to address it. Let's see: The railroads were built by the Chinese, the coal was extracted by Italians and Irish, the donut shops in California fell prey to Koreans, the small grocery shops in my home town were owned mostly by the Lebanese and other members of the Arab world. The garment industry was founded by Eastern European Jews, the diners of New York are run mostly by Greeks. I can just go on and on. How can anyone possibly support this hypothesis?

Might as well kill 2 birds with one stone here. Jim, I guess you were addressing me when talking about "worshipping Canada" so let me respond this way:

I also found your article interesting. Most of it is 100% true. Canadians don't vote for a candidate, they vote for a party. The US equivalent of government agencies are technically offshoots of the British empire (hence, Crown corporations)and the citizens can not impeach their leaders regardless of any misdeeds. Personally, I think the ceremonious pomp regarding the Queen Mother and national holidays dedicated to a country that has absolutely no political ties with Canada since 1867 (ie: Victoria Day) are ridiculous. So does most of the generations born in the 1970's and beyond.

But that's not what makes Canadians different. Rather, it's attitudes, tolerance and an unobtrusive media and government. For example:

The US flaunts so much suggestive sex on the airwaves but God Forbid someone's nipple should be shown, that causes a national outrage. When polled, nobody in Canada saw the big deal. Nudity is allowed on regular broadcast TV after 9 PM as long as there's a disclaimer. The CRTC (equivalent of the FCC) doesn't have to fend off thousands of calls from right wing morality groups that lobby the government with millions of dollars.

As for multi-culturism, here's a little secret. Nobody minds having everything printed in 2 languages any more than French speaking Canadians mind having to learn English. In America, in order to become a citizen, it is demanded that you swear total allegiance to the US and basically disregard everything about your previous culture from language to dress politics. In Canada, they don't force you to be "with us or against us."

There will be over 50,000 Iraqi-Canadians casting votes on the 30th thanks to volunteer groups making sure their voice is heard. How many Bush supporters do you know that would volunteer their time to that cause? Tolerance. Canadians have it, many Americans do not.

Gay marriage? Many Americans fear it so much they are willing to change the constitution. Legalized medical marijuana? American loves to point to Canada as the root of all evil, yet they spend billions of dollars advertising legalized prescription drugs that half the population should "ask their doctor about".

I agree that history has shown that every great democracy has fallen, but the reason is NOT due to immigration. It's due to the fact they were all EMPIRES. (Greeks, Romans, and every European nation that called itself an "empire.")

Chrish:
Few more responses. Gee, small wonder that Indonesia, the largest nation of Muslims doesn't want Americans doling out aid. Ask yourself why. As for Clinton and Bosnia, I don't recall Clinton telling Congress that the Croatians had WMD's, were an imminent and immediate threat to our national security or having a hidden agenda since January 20th, 1992 that was later divulged.

To no-name:
> Two quotes from the same person.
> Any hypocrisy here?

Please explain why I am hypocrite by comparing Vietnam to Iraq from a historical point of view? It's my judgment that history will eventually gauge the war in Iraq as much as a mistake as Vietnam.

[rodi]

Sorry
The last post came from me
Forgot to add my name

Rodi

[Jim]

Please tell me at what point were the Vietnamese elections, Rodi. The Iraqi elections are in a few days. Please call me when we lost 58,000 troops in Iraq. That won't happen.

All cultures are welcomed and should be preserved in America. BUT to not ALSO assimilate to the ways of this country is doing a disservice to the immigrants. If I was going to move to Germany, I would learn to speak German. And I wouldn't expect the state to create special schools to teach me in English. Yes, it's great to remember and preserves the holidsys, traditions and languages of the "old country", but to not learn the ways of the "new country" is only holding back the immigrant.
But then again I am a racist according to the brave anonymous. Oh really. Probably many of you expats think the same thing. So sad.

Rodi, there are only about 30,000 Iraqi-Canadians and about 90,000 Iraqi=Americans. I hope all those of age vote.

Sex on tv? Yes there is sex on tv in America and Canada. Was there a strip tease at the Grey Cup? Or the Stanley Cup, for that matter. If somebody wants to see a little t&a that's fine but it's not for everyone and it's generally not expected at the Super Bowl. What if someone strolled into your living room and started stripping in front of your 5 year old. Hey, don't be a prude, let her do it.

-Signed, a Prude and Racist.

[Chrish]

I am constantly impressed with your consistent responses; amazing, absolutely
amazing.

Anyone who disagrees with your posture, position, or belief is arbitrarily labeled as a bigot, a racist, somekindof phobia, dumb-ass, idiot, uninformed, or some other nice cute little name that Liberals have developed over the years. And if that doesn't work then you resort to the, oh so, typcial shouting, screaming, and more name calling. And you're examples of the "intelligent and informed"?

Yes, I changed the subject - so what - haven't you by your posts also changed the subject? I initially posted on this page
a thank you to Luke AND somehow it mutated into another nonsensical and idiotic lamenting on everything is Bush's fault, Bush is an idiot and those who voted for him are idiots as well. Well, guess what boys and girls contrary to what you would like to believe and how you thing things should be not everyone agrees; get past it, accept it, and deal with it. Your's is not the only way anymore than those on the right is the only way.

Yes, this country is composed of immigrants BUT, the difference now is that we have this obsession with "multi-culturalism", "diversity", "bi-lingualism" to the detriment of everything else. Rodi, you said they have things in two languages, I assume you're talking about government manuals and the like? Here, in California, we have between 10 - 15 different languages being published.

Please explain to me what is so bad about having one common language, English, being spoken? My mother came from Mexico, she spoke, wrote, and read both English and Spanish, fluently, did not lose her identity nor did she lose her culture.

The only thing I see happening with the push by left wing Liberals by encouraging this and putting down the learning of the English language under that nonsensical idea of "Political Correctness" is that it gives them Power over people; "Keep the people ignorant and you can control them".

And what is wrong with keeping our borders secure and reducing if not eliminating Illegal Immigration? FYI, the majority of the people are for immigration, support immigration but, are against illegal immigration. But, then by the standards of Liberals there are no "Illegal Immigrants", to call someone an "Illegal Immigrant" is "racist". Notice there's one of those words that Liberals like to use when they think it will shut, those who disagree with them, up.

I suppose, following your logic and reasoning, this also would be the fault of Bush.

Racist, Miriamg, Jeff, and Rodi? I find what Left Wing Liberals in the Democratic Party have done over the years as being truly representative of what a Racist, a Bigot, a fear monger, and a person of Hate
are really all about. You don't encourage nor help people to stand up on their own two feet. Oh, you give it lip service but, not really do anything. You encourage laziness, dependency, prejudism, disdain, and contempt for anything that smacks of independence, personal responsibility, accountability, and hard work. Liberals don't want people to be able to stand up on their own they want people to be ignorant, uneducated, helpless, and dependent because it keeps them in power.

[rodi]

Chrish:

As one of Mexican descent, I'm surprised that you think celebrating multi-culturism and diversity is a left wing propaganda device designed to maintain power. the difference between an American going to Germany is that Germany was founded by Germans, France by the French, Italy by Italians, etc. Nobody is "American" except the natives.

Nothing is wrong with one language; I'd love it if everyone spoke English. But they don't. How can you possibly attach a political label on diversity? Your argument that the left wing wants to keep people ignorant is an oxymoron. Why are you so fearful of having the voting pamphlet published in 15 languages? Sometimes it irritated me but I'll take California's tolerance over states that fear any non-white, non-English speaking Americans any day.

Clinton may have lied about who he had sex with but he didn't keep the people ignorant. Lying thru your teeth does that and whether you like it or not, that is what Bush has done in order to accomplish his little "freedom" mission.

America is the only country in the world without an "official language." Why do you suppose that is? Assimilation does not mean abandoning diversity. Celebrate diversity, don’t condemn it.

Jim:
I know there were no elections in Vietnam and I don't expect another 52,000 to die before we finally get out. That's not my argument. I'm simply saying that most historians have judged the reasons for the Vietnamese conflict as a lie and a mistake. I believe the same will be said for Iraq in 30 years.

I hope all the Iraqis in the US vote also. I'm not anti-Democracy. But you didn’t answer my question about how many BUSH supporters are leading VOLUNTEER groups to encourage and assist with the voting. It's called practicing what you preach. But according to Chrish, since they probably don't speak English, maybe they are destroying American democracy. Ah, the hypocrisy.

[miriamg]

That characterization of liberals is simply not one I recognize. It's downright offensive.

Chrish, I have never heard a positive defense of Bush from you. Any time you're pushed to give one, you bring up immigration or education (issues not specific to either party) and then attack "liberals" who apparently have ruined the country.

If you want to be sensible about this, let's say that some programs put into place by Democratic administrations in the past haven't worked. The same goes for Republican administrations. As a nation, we should be seeking to learn from our past mistakes, rather than accuse a whole party of prejudice and racism.

Chrish, whatever you think of them the Democrats are not in power. Bush & the GOP can do whatever the hell they want now. We get it, believe me. But I don't think you get it. Billions of dollars have been poured into Iraq, to Halliburton's profit. Tens of thousands of innocents are dead. The government paid a supposedly unbiased journalist - with taxpayers' money - to push their policies. Now they want to dismantle social security, and you don't seem to mind.

I urge you to read Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas: How the Conservatives Won the Heart of America".

I too am waiting to hear what you think of Iraq On The Record. And Richard Clarke's book. And Bob Woodward's book about Bush.

[miriamg]

Speaking of independence & hard work, here's a little comparison I like to make about entrepreneurship, UK vs USA.:

I've been self-employed for the past 4 years and doing OK. Thanks to the NHS, my healthcare has nothing to do with my employment status. I continue to pay a proportion of my earnings (7%) into the National Insurance system (which includes state pension, disability and unemployment benefits as well as healthcare). No middleman, no profiteering, less waste. If my business starts to do really well and I end up rich, I can buy a private health insurance if I find the NHS too proletariat for my tastes.

If I'd been in the States, I would not have been able to go it alone because I'd be dependent on my previous employer's healthcare package. The cost of private health insurance would have made starting my own business impossible. I'd also have to spend time shopping around & paperwork, etc, in relation to my healthcare, time I could have spent working & earning.

Just some food for thought.

[Jim]

Rodi,
Immigrants are not hurting America. Immigrants almost by definition are people who want a "better life" therefore are hard working and want to go to a place where they can live better and be rewarded for their hard work. The problem is, not demanding that they speak english is a disservice to them AND those of us who speak the language of 93% of the country. It would be like wanting your kid to go off to college to study accounting, but in high school telling him, "you don't have to take math. It takes too much time." Then when he gets to college and has no understanding of math he gets frustrated and quits or has to learn twice as fast to keep up.

Miriamg:

Good food for thought. Same principles apply in Canada. No, Jim, I'm not defending Canada, but rather pointing out one example of America's REAL internal issues that are at the crisis stage. Occupying countries in the name of freedom is not one of those issues. Taking care of our own citizens should be.

Altering social security so we can invest a portion in Haliburton is NOT a priority for most Americans. Reforming education and affordable health care is.

Chrish:
As Miriamg and I both pointed out, we get it. Bush won and we accept that. What frustrates me is this: In the past you seemed very receptive and open minded to our arguments. Yet recently, you seem to attribute everything to some left wing conspiracy theory. Believe me, we are not bashing Bush because we are left wing liberals. Everything he has done that is dishonest has now been proven as such. You can no longer defend it.

If I admit that he won and will get over it, how about you and Jim admit that there were no WMD's, the NUMBER ONE justification for why we sent 1100 Americans to die. You were deceived. Period.

Us expats offer suggestions, some good, some not so good. You and Jim must realize you're at the point where you can't defend Bush policies so you choose to associate everything with some miscellaneous argument that involves the extreme left wing. I'm not even a registered Democrat.

Let me see if this quote from today's paper helps illustrate what's wrong with Bush and his administration:
=====================================
According to a Bush interview with The Washington Post, if you have a problem with the war in Iraq, tough. Bush said he saw no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments made in pre-war planning.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

If you voted for Bush, there's not much left to do but continue the lie. You can eat your shrimp at the inaugural parties without thinking about the moral dilemma of war dead or destruction in Iraq. You can forget about it all for one night of celebratory political debauchery.

You can even forget about the billions of dollars of recent tsunami damage. What's a few billion when Bush is about to ask you this year for his blessing on $100 billion in emergency spending, mostly for the war? Let Mother Nature flood the Potomac in winter if she disapproves.
===========================================

No president in history has ever been so smug, cocky, stubborn and outright obnoxious. I'm sure he somehow believes in his policies. But lies and deceits are simply not what the world wants from the leader of the free world. Yet he keeps repeating over and over how the voters gave him a mandate to do ANYTHING he wants. So now you and Jim must suffer the consequences as much as Miriamg and myself.

Jim:

I think you're kind of on the right track but somehow you got lost. We agree that immigrants choose the US for a better life and more opportunity. So how does demanding that they all speak English before they get here help them? If you think 93% of Americans speak fluent English, you have obviously never been to Miami, San Francisco or half of southern Texas. All French Canadians know that they must speak English if they want to excel in a global marketplace. However, nobody forces them to abandon Francophone culture.

Where are you going with the immigration argument? Can you at least relate it to something positive out of the Bush administration? Please do tell.

[Jim]

No President in history has been so smug, cocky, stubborn and outright obnoxious? What about Taft, Polk, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson? Remember them?

[Jim]

How many are voting in Metro Detroit???

http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0501/18/A01-62686.htm

[Chrish]

Rodi,

Now why am I not surprised by your response nor, for that matter, Miriamg's?

"celebrating multi-culturism and diversity"?
There is nothing wrong with celebrating nor even being proud of one's own culture, history, nor the idea of diversity. What is wrong is where it has been taken to; the extreme. In the name of "multi-culturism and diversity" one is supposed to be ashamed of ones own country, history, and culture. In a few schools here waving of the American flag was strongly discouraged as "it might offend someone". This in the name of multi-culturism and diversity?

We are no longer Americans we are now xxxxxx-Americans {put your own word in place of the x's}now. From Mexican-American to whatever-American. Even Barak Obama understood this when he gave his speech at the Democratic Convention. You can add to that litany of words the color's "red" and "blue" now; a red-American or a blue-American. Heck, now you can even go buy an armband or ring to show your colors.

Yes, I am proud of my Mexican heritage, culture, and history but, I am an American;
not a Mexican-American, not a Latino-American, not an Hispanic-American. I am an American. I celebrate my Mexican heritage, culture, history, and am proud of it all but, I celebrate more, my American heritage, culture, history, and am equally proud of it and of her. And why should I not be?

No, I do not believe that any immigrant should be forced, coerced, or encouraged to forget their language. I believe they should be helped to speak the language that is common in the US; English. What is so wrong with that?

Yes, I believe many of those so-called education programs were nothing more than glass and mirrors and only served to keep non-english speaking people dependent. How
does one keep a program going that has been
shown to be nothing less than an abject failure? Why do those in power insist on spending more money on something that is failing? Why does it take The People to have it stopped and discontinued? I'm talking about bi-linqual education.

You asked me about something that Bush has done, OK. What is wrong with No Child Left Behind Act? Some would say no funding, OK, what kind of funding are we talking about?
Funding to have teachers do what they're paid to do; teach reading, writing, and arithmetic? Less of the "social engineering" stuff and more of the basic's?

What did Bush do with the No Child Left Behind Act? Isn't it primarily putting the Onus on the teachers and schools to bring the test scores up where they should be? And what, exactly, does that imply? Does that not imply that the quality of education should be raised "back" to where it once was? And what are we talking about?
How about Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic; the 3 R's. If a child is failing you don't pass the child onto the next grade with the assumption they'll pick it up later. You hold the child back, as difficult as that is, and then "help" them to get back on track. Has that been done? Nope. What's the end results? High School Graduates who are functionally illiterate; they can't read, write, nor do basic math. In essence those kids have been "left behind". Along comes Bush, puts an act in place to, essentially, change that flawed thinking and what happens? The naysayers, probably those who want to maintain their control, come out and deride, renounce it, and reject it. "He's not putting any money towards it." Money towards what? Teacher's to teach minus all the unnecessary fluff and BS they've put into education over the past several decades?

Doesn't anyone see a problem when ad's by Sylvan Learning Center are put on the air to encourage parents to bring their failing kids to them with a guarantee that they will raise their kid's grade by, at least, one grade point or higher or their money back? Our taxpayer dollars are being used to educate our children, aren't they?

And you ask what's wrong with multi-culturalism and diversity? In and of itself there is nothing wrong with either nor of speaking more than one language. What is wrong is what has been done with those two ideas; taken to the extreme. Why
do think they are called extremists? More importantly why are they allowed to take things to the extreme? That applies to both sides of the aisle.

[rodi]

Jim:

I am glad to see all the people voting in Detroit. As pointed out earlier, I am not anti-democracy or anti-American or "pro-Canadian." Detroit has the highest population in the US of Arab and Muslim descent so it make sense that they'd all vote there. All the power to them. On that, we are in agreement.

However, you still didn't address my questions, probably because you can't defend Bush anymore. Defending democracy is not the same thing. Responding by using historical figures that none of us were alive for (Johnson notwithstanding)is not really the explanation I was looking for.

One more time:
What is your point regarding your fear of immigrants that can't speak fluent English?
How does the Bush administration have anything to do with it?

How do you respond to comments from Bush that I quoted from the paper in my last post? Can you honestly say that "the people had a mandate and they chose me" is not the biggest kick in the ass from a president who swore to unite the divided nation only 8 short weeks ago?

Can you blame the extreme left wing when they see your president polarizing the entire nation with $40 million inauguration ceremonies while the soldiers die on a daily basis?

Since you're such a history buff, did you know that FDR canceled the pomp during his 3rd inauguration during WWII in favor of a simple ceremony with chicken and cold cuts?

Funny how Bush can hold huge party for himself while the troops continue to risk their lives for the benefit of the lobbyists. Yeah, that's real patriotic.

As for the article you cite, I point this out:

"Besides Southgate, the other U.S. polling places are in Nashville, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles".

So tell me where does it say one word about the BUSH SUPPORTERS that helped VOLUNTEER to make this possible ? In Canada, there are 4 cities that Iraqis will vote in, mostly made possible by non-partisan, non-Iraqi businessmen, politicians and ordinary citizens. And this from a country that had the "gall" to defy George Bush. Funny how the hypocrisy drips from the mouths of all the flag waving freedom lovers except when push comes to shove. God Forbid they should spend any of their time actually helping the cause they claim to believe in. Canadians may not have the power to impeach their leaders for oral sex encounters but at least they have the compassion to provide real assistance in the form of votes, not guns.

And Chrish:
Cmon, man. Don't leave us hanging. Or are you too busy reading the books you told us you'd read?

[Jeff]

Chrish, why do you always turn a blind eye to the facts presented? I can't understand why someone who's obviously passionate about the issues doesn't care to explore or acknowledge any underlying facts that don't support your position.

Time and time again, I have been challenged by Bush supporters on this site to produce the evidence and I always do. So what happens? You ignore the bulletproof evidence and try to pick apart the evidence that's subjective or change the subject completely to something that the President isn't killing people in. Then when cornered, Jim says something like, all presidents lie, so we shouldn't hold Bush accountable either.

So what I gather is simply this... you wanted Saddam removed and Bush accomplished that so now every time he announces something like sovereignty or elections or democracy in Iraq, you give him the green light, no matter how much money it costs or how many lives are wasted and no matter how wrong he was about the justification in the first place. It also doesn't matter whether the stated goals occur. After all, an election where huge numbers of people are massacred, intimidated, and candidates assasinated in broad daylight is still an election as long as Saddam doesn't win 100% of the vote.

It's all okay. So go ahead... support a guy who rewards based on loyalty instead of job performance. No one made any mistakes in his administration... ever, not even the ones that are obviously stupid. I know if I made the type of errors that Gonzales made in the vetting of Bernie Kerik on my job, I'd be disbarred and possibly thrown in jail. In Bush's world, I would be promoted because I kiss his ass, not because I'm good at my job. So be it.

Chrish, you must read my books. Only my books are the truth. Chrish, you must read my books. Only my books are the truth. Chrish, you must read my books. Only my books are the truth.

[rodi]

To the no-name poster:

Have the balls to sign your name when you say something childish.

As Jeff elequently put it, the books we refer to are all factual accounts of the events leading up to the mess that Bush placed us in. They are not left wing liberal anti-patriotic, gay-loving plots like Chrish and Jim imply.

Rather, they BACK UP our arguments with FACTS. I think the recent dummying up of the Bushies is dircetly related to the admissions of error, (read between the limes: lies and deception) that justified everything the've done. The problem is that even staunch red staters appear to have been caught off guard when Bush says "well, now we have to find out what was wrong with the intelligence. Or Condi's quote from yesrday's hearings that "we didn;t say it would be easy. We have to be patient." (in other words, I lick Bush's rectum no matter what facts I know)

Kudos to Barbara Boxer (as usual) and John Kerry for being the only 2 senators to have the balls to stand up to her yesterday. If Jim and Chrish are correct about one thing, it's the complete lack of conviction shown by almost all US seantors and congressmen. The Democratic party should be ashamed of themselves for their silence. Of course the "swing voters" didn't vote for them. They don't stand for anything, they don't make an effort to steal away some of the influence of the lobbyists and they obviously put their tails between their legs and gave up like crybabies.

Even after all the admisisons of error from the FBI, CIA, anti-terrorism groups, the 9/11 commission and Bush's own staff (save Rice and Cheney), they all still turn a blind eye.

How about this as food for thought?
If the GOP raised the consciousness of America enough to convince the whole world that oral sex is an impeachable offense, how about having the balls to call for an independent commission to examine how the current president broke the oath of office and intentionally deceived the Congress, the voters and the world.

Christ, Bush makes Nixon look like a pickpocket and most of the Congress, Senate, voting public and media continue to just use the popular vote as justification for a "mandate."

Does anyone remember that picture of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam after we sold Iraq all that poison gas and then gave them our blessing to use on those mean and nasty Kurds? But I guess that all part of the Big Plan.

And then there's this email from John Kerry that arrives in my inbox today calling for the resignation of Rummy.
To quote a small piece:
=====================================
It's a question of competence. Poor planning at the Pentagon is letting American soldiers down. According to the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, Iraq is now providing the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, [and] the opportunity for enhancing technical skills."2 Our troops need a capable Secretary of Defense. At the very least, they absolutely need that.

I believe that together, the three million of us who worked together on the campaign can help the troops. We not only have a right to speak out against failed Bush policies: we have a duty to defend this country from a President who refuses to recognize the total inadequacy of his own Defense Secretary. That's how democracy works. And that's why America has worked all these years.
===========================================

I know Chrish and Jim will tell us to get over it, we lost, this is sour grapes, neener-neener-neener. That's just the point. Admitting HOW you stole the vote by lying and then smearing it in the media's face in the form of a $40 million party is so much more of an offense than a blow job form an intern.

But rather than going back and taking a second look at those books that spew "left wing propaganda", let's just sweep it all under the rug and pretend we're all one uhappy and united nation.

[rodi]

Sorry for not pasting in the spellchecked version of my last post before I hit send.
But you get the idea. Pretend I'm a voter from Mississippi

[Jim]

Nice one Rodi. "I lick Bush's rectum...." How typically profound.

I'm sure you meant to say voter from Saskatchewan, instead of Mississippi.

Barbara Boxer is a raving racist lunatic. I can't believe she voted against a black woman for Sec. of State. She must hate all blacks and all women.

Rodi,

Points taken.

Regarding the "If the GOP raised the consciousness of America enough to convince the whole world that oral sex is an impeachable offense". First off I was disgusted by that whole debacle and the amount of money spent on the whole assinine thing. Did Clinton do wrong? Yes. Was it anybody's business? No, that was between he and Hillary and had no business being trotted out for all to see. I've yet to hear an apology, from Starr or anyone else involved, to Clinton over that whole fruitless and disgusting "investigation". Nor, for that matter, an apology to Us, the taxpayers, for wasting our money. Can you imagine what that money could have been used for?

Regarding the "how about having the balls to call for an independent commission to examine", all things considered I would have no problem with an independent commission examining. But, how many more commissions are needed to "examine" the evidence and, more importantly, who would be on this so-called "independent commission" and would this commission be truly independent or only in name? Would it be turned into, yet another, forum for either side to air their differences, grievances, or political agenda with both sides pointing to particular points in the report and shouting "Ahah! Here's the proof.".

I also agree that far too much is being made and spent on this inauguration ceremony. It's all pomp and circumstance.
Honestly now, do you truly believe that the Democrats wouldn't be doing the same thing, given the opportunity?

"Or are you too busy reading the books you told us you'd read?", sorry, I don't recall making that statement. I'm reading the report that Jeff spoke of and which I hope
we can soon di