Powered by TypePad

« Michael Kinsley Is Prematurely Dismissive Of Bill Ayers | Main | Open Thread Saturday »

May 30, 2008



What the hell is this guy smoking?


I don't care if Bush turns out to be an Al-Qaeda agent. Or even Zawahiri's love child as a result of a one-night stand with Helen Thomas (sorry).

He's still a far superior choice to be President than this absurd man.


Can one party be at peace when the other isn't? Isnt this like the latin dance routine, It Takes Two to Tango?

Democrat Clown Show continuously playing on the Moron Channel.


Hillary should have run in 2004.

She could have beaten Bush, and the Dem manipulations to put Barack Obama in position for the nomination would never have started.

Kerry was an exercise in self-hatred for the Dems.

Rick Ballard

"Kerry was an exercise in self-hatred for the Dems."

Which has clearly doubled in 2008.


I don't know what to say. Holey Moley comes to mind, but not sure if it is sufficient.

Barry Dauphin

His lucky CIA hat told him we were at peace.


Obama stills thinks we are at peace and wants to disarm the USA:

" First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning -- and as president, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals. You know where I stand." Boo 2007


That has to be read twice to be believed...

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."

Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war," The Hill's Sam Youngman reports.

Stupid, not radical.


Well I have read it twice, it still does not make any sense. Of course lefties tell us all the time of the nuance that Kerry has.

Now I understand

nuance = dumb as a sack of rocks


Vapid is the word that comes to my mind. He should go back to wind surfing. Then only the people of Nantucket will have to be offended.


I think Pelosi, Kerry, and Obama should travel immediately to Iran and first thank them for the surge victory, request that they stop their development of nuclear weapons because we are getting rid of ours, make Iran pledge to stop killing our soldiers, and ask them if they would like to partake in a global health care system.

Rick Ballard


Did you see this one?

Which may well tie to this one and be capped by Asian subsidy cuts.

I wonder how narrow the exit is going to get?


Does Kerry know that al-Qaeda had declared war on the U.S. in 1998? What the hell is he talking about? As it was, we sat as a "paper tiger" taking whatever war-like attack UBL wanted to throw at us for years. Is that the dem's idea of new warfare. All the world gets to lob attacks at us and we shouldn't do anything but beg for more?

Lefty LaRue

"I think Pelosi, Kerry, and Obama should travel immediately to Iran and first thank them for the surge victory, request that they stop their development of nuclear weapons..."

Just as McCain challenged Obama to quit making sh*t up and actually visit Iraq, Pres. Bush should ask Pelosi, Kerry and Obama to go clear things up by visiting Iran next week and come back with a report for the American people.


I'll just scream this into the void one last time:

The issue of the cost of the Iraq War needs to be balanced against the Cost of the UN Weapons Inspection Program. This gives you the Net Cost of the Iraq War.

The Net Cost of the Iraq War is about $1 Billion per month.

The reason being that it took 20,000 US troops stationed in Kuwait per UN Inspector plus a Naval Task Force in the area to have *any* UN inspectors allowed in Iraq by *Saddam* at all.

ergo ... it would take 80-100,000 US troops - plus Naval Task Force - however long it would take 60-80 UN Inspectors to complete a full inspection with Saddam in charge of Iraq.

By my math, that's about 18-23 *years* - if ever.

The cost of "Bush's War" turns out to be about half of what a US-Military enabled UN inspections program would cost ... and I can make an argument that the war likely resulted in fewer casualties for both US troops and Iraqi civilians, was more effective in its task, and - oh, by the way, freed over 25,000,000 (m-m-m-m-illion) people in the process.


but, hey, why bring up basic economics?


After Pelosi comes back from Iran, she can also tell the American people how the Democrat Party would democratically govern us better by giving us the example of how they picked their candidate democratically by counting all the votes. I think she agrees because she said this nonsense today:

"We all have to come together because the American people have to know that the Democratic Party can run its own delegate selection process if they want to know that we can govern America," she said.



Did you include the cost of the no-fly zones in their?

Would you please right that up so I can e-mail it to a local libertarian talk show host???


You beat me to it Pofarmer. How about adding the Oil for Food program?

hit and run

I still mourn that Kerry chose not to run.


Here are two comments I made here awhile back:

The first post cites a CNN article that detailed the UN's Hans Blix's characterization of the *UN* response regarding Iraq, which was still controlled by Saddam at that point.

The Wayback machine can provide the actual CNN cite along with the Blix quotation regarding the logistical difficulties he, Blix, faced.

----------------- previous JoM post -----

This is ‘reality’ in October, 2002.

Chief UN Inspector Warns Iraq CNN Article w/Blix dated November, 2002

The article is instructive in that the physical reality of the situation in Iraq is laid out by none other than Hans Blix.

For those in the reality-based community, please look at the picture that accompanies the article. The reality shown is the Thin Robin’s Egg Blue Line getting off the bus (yes, the bus - singular) as the onground weapons inspections resume.

The team of 17 inspectors — the first to go to Iraq since inspections ceased in 1998 (ed: note to the reality-based, that's four years or 1 Presidential term) — arrived in Baghdad backed by a tough new U.N. mandate that threatens war if Iraq fails to cooperate

So, the UN now has Tough! New! Mandates that Threaten war. Against Saddam.

That’s a lot of pressure for those 17 people. I mean, after all, those are just 17 people, that showed up in a bus.

For those in the reality based community, here is what the concept ‘17’ looks like as asterisks:


That sting of asterisks represent the total number of UN inspectors in Iraq in October 2002. Not a lot. Fortunately, though, there were plans for putting more boots on the ground.

Dozens more inspectors are expected, with 35 set to arrive in Baghdad on December 8.
The U.N. advance team also is bringing in several tons of equipment in preparation to look at more than 700 sites.

Here is a visual representation of the number of backups to help the initial seventeen.


Fortunately, this less-than-company sized group of people has certain things going for it to help them know where to spend their time. I mean, there are 700 sites with a total of 53 people doing the inspecting. In a country the size of California. With a history of trying to hide bad, illegal stuff like nerve gas, which they had used before.

Fortunately, this hardy band of inspectors will be aided in their mission. The UN will make use, per Hans Blix, of the following:

Decisions about where to search in a country the size of Texas will be made based on what the Iraqis tell the inspectors, along with media reports, intelligence reports and information gleaned from Iraqi weapons workers, Blix said.
Blix said.


I've been reading JustoneMinute for a while now. But I'm inclined to have a fundamental problem with any inspection being based on what the Iraqis, the Press, Intelligence Reports, and Iraqi weapons workers say and that that will ensure that a thorough inspection takes place.

of 700 suspected sites.

by 53 people.

Feel better?

I don't.

Fortunately, given the nature of the operation, the criticality of the mission, and the United Nations 50+ year history in logistics, the United Nations is up to the task of moving inspectors in.

again - from 2002:

The logistics of gathering the inspectors from around the world into one place and ensuring they have the tools to do their job have been daunting, he {Blix} said.
"I think perhaps it’s underestimated how difficult it is to get 100 persons in place, 35 jeeps, eight helicopters,” he said.

Huh, wha?

So, per the guy in charge of the effort, Hans Blix, rounding up 100 people, 8 helicopters, and 35 jeeps is a daunting task?

And the reason for pulling this group together in the first place is to look for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction in a dictatorship that’s both attacked a neighboring nation and used WMDs on its own citizens.

And,by the by, the United Nations had four years to prepare some contingency plans for resuming inspections.

This was a ‘daunting' task’?

Fortunately, General Tommy Franks didn’t use the UN Event Planning Staff for his "Meet Me in Baghdad" get-together.

I guess the United Nations never heard of the American Express Business Gold Card. Maybe they could help the UN find a better way to get the things they need.

Reality concludes with :

Asked if the inspectors were under pressure from the United States to be more aggressive, he said, “We get recommendations and advice from all countries, including the United States.
We may not be the brightest in the world, but I can tell you, we’re in nobody’s pocket."

While not questioning Blix’s integrity, or the powers of mental acuity on the part the inspectors, the integrity of the United Nations and certain members of the Security Council is up for discussion.

Given the revelations of the Oil-For-Food and the appearances of impropriety, I have some questions about whether the United Nations was not ‘in the pocket’ of a certain mustachioed former head of state.

So, the reality is that there were 53 inspectors were on the ground in Iraq conducting physical inspections by December, 2001.



You can take 53 people to lunch at McDonalds and the restaurant won't be bothered.

For the UN-minded, you can fit 53 people in 11 Toyota SUVs.

Question for the Reality-based: just how confident would you be with any declaration like "Iraq Has No Weapons of Mass Destruction” made by a team of 50 people?

Posted by: BumperStickerist | September 01, 2005 at 08:47 AM

------- a JoM post of mine, in 2006 -------

The US public expected Democralypse Now to take place in Iraq despite the fact that Bush et al. were consistently talking about the difficulties the region would have transitioning from Hussein to something other than Hussein.

Based on the Left's current posturing apparently what they were really looking for was Chalabi to come in with US-support and be propped up as a strong man. Bush, to his credit, has/had faith in the concept of democracy.

Also, 'cleo and her ilk (yes, I said 'ilk') seem to think like defense attorneys about Iraq and the WMD issue. To them the fact that US troops did not find huge caches of WMDs has some significance.

Let me make an analogy through a question: If a drug dealer manages to flush their drugs down a toilet before the cops get the warrant, did the drug dealer have drugs?

There's plenty of reason to think that Saddam, given over a year's worth of notice, had time to redistribute whatever materials he did have.

Lastly, there's the question of whether the Left would have done anything at all. You could not have had UN inspections in Iraq absent 80-100,000 US troops stationed in Kuwait. The UN was capable of fielding about 35-50 UN Inspectors initially (and Blix cited the tremendous logistical difficulties associated with managing a group that size) in late 2002.

So, the question becomes, it took the US Miltiary with total access to everything about 2 years to comb through Iraq and certify that there no stockpiles of weapons.

How long would it take 50-100 (200 if you're feeling optimistic) UN inspectors (of the caliber of Scott Ritter, if you like) to certify that Iraq had no WMD? Bear in mind that the Husseins are still in charge.



"I still mourn that Kerry chose not to run."

Hit, LOL

Since Kerry always thinks we are at peace, why was he reporting for duty? :)


I came up with NFZ'z and OFF and wondered off and sure enough got beaten. This paper pegged the "sanctions enforcment" at 14.5 b a year. The OFF program would be tricky because it was a liablity for sanctions enforcement, but it was also an asset for the UN. All told the last published of Oil-for-Food proper was a bit north of 20 billion over the life of the program, and there were a few desk drawers that were never searched (the Reparations Program and outside sales via Turkey, Jordan, and Syria) probably putting the corrution and fraud at around 40 b.


"What group of fools nominated that clown?"

The same group that are going to nominate Obama.


Well technically, we were at peace of Dec 7. 1941 (although the crew of the Reuben James and the Greer would beg to differ).
It would more accurate to say, that we were
in the spirit of the 'phony war of 1940; from 1996 when Osama declared his first fatwa; although the first attack on the Saudi National Guard post in Riyadh and
Mogadishu, were unspoken declarations of
war. You want to know how low the media
can go, taking a pot shot at McCain's father:href*<http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/light-shed-on-career-of-mccains-father/20080530095309990001icid=1616058736x1203355801x1200309392> meanwhile, Obama's supposed relative in the 89th, goes by more names than Remington Steele. W.C. Dunham, according to a historical account, CT. Barnes according to the division web site
to whom inquiries have yielded paleoliberal snark. Of course, Barak's other relation, his tocayo as they would say in Spanish, served as a bureaucrat in the Mau Mau regime of Kenya; creating thekleptocracy
we've known as the legacy of Kenyatta.

Th interesting thing is that pre 2000,Scott
Ritter, was a valuable resource. He was one of the sources of WMD discoveries up until Dec. 1998. He was the source who implicated
Primakov as an Iraqi agent in the Russian
cabinet. His 2000 book Endgame, layed out the borrowed nature of the Iraqi chemical
weapons program from the Soviets, how the
Special Republican Guards came to be in charge of the Anfal campaign as well as the WMD effort. How the Dulaimi, Ubeidi & Jibbour tribes made up the core of the security services and military; which made
the case for debaathification a necessary
one. Sometime after that, he was caught up
in that police sting, and the Oil for Food
connected bribe and he became a moonbat, which he has continued on that path; taking
up the Iranian mullahcracy's brief.


Hans Blix is probably the person most responsible for the Iraq war. If he had taken a tough line against Saddam and delivered a strongly worded report to the UN regarding Iraq's non-compliance with the inspectors, the resolution approving military force explicitly would have passed and Saddam would have been cornered. But since Blix obfuscated and refused to state in black and white that Saddam was in non-compliance, it gave wavering countries an out and gave Saddam hope he could hang on. He took the diplomatic leverage away from Bush and made war the only option.



I saw some headlines on the CFTC investigation, but didn't think it was serious. I'm surprised that it is migrating over to Europe as well.

On the NYT bit about cotton futures, I recall that Jim Rogers was big on cotton last year and as recently as before he bugged out of the country-FWIW. I suppose cathyf would be able to address it better but could the CFTC draft rules so detailed that specific types of funds can't participate in the market or can they pick the direction they want the trading to go?

It all does bring to mind that the Hunt Brother's used rice and sugar to try to corner silver and the Fed closed some doors and shot a few and the CFTC only opened trading for liquidation (on silver).

The bit about Asia scaling back their subsidies is a good thing, and I thought that demand in Asia has been scaling back for the last couple months anyway.

One of the things I'd like to see a journalist look into, is how much of this recent spike is "illusory demand" from China (rice and oil specifically). With the Olympics coming up they are shutting down pretty much everything around Beijing to clear out the smog. They needed to build up a layer of fat to do this and giving away free oil and rice would keep people from protesting too much-just a thought.

As to how narror the exit gets-it does sort of remind me of this. I wonder who is sitting underneath the sword.


Darn it my chart didn't format right-it was the N225 from its Jan 90 high of 39K to its Oct 90 close of 20k...

Rick Ballard


That's a very good point about China and the Olympics. They really don't want any more civil unrest and cutting subidies would surely get them some. India has elections in the fall and seems to be following a "don't rock the boat" policy as well.

One might think that the World Bank or the IMF would raise some questions concerning the advisability of extending loans and aid to countries using the money to lower domestic oil and gas prices - thus driving up demand and raising prices around the world.

It's as if the entire Asian "boom" is a Three Card Monte game.


Excellent post, Bumperstickerist and excellent point, Ben.


Anybody else think Obama would be better served by just admitting he is a Muslim and disowning the pastors who were trotted out to disuade everyone from that notion?


***Since Kerry always thinks we are at peace, why was he reporting for duty? *****
Surely you don't expect this pacifist to report for duty if there's a war going on?

JM Hanes

Ann: "....and ask them if they would like to partake in a global health care system."

ROTFL! On the other hand, that's probably on Obama's list right next to ending world poverty. Given his enthusiastic embrace of the UN Millenium Plan, we should probably be checking out what else is in it.


Good Morning everyone - today is a big day! What will the rules committee do about Michigan and Florida? Will there be protesters? Will the arguments go into tomorrow? Will Hillary sue over the results? Will Howard Dean scream? I could barely sleep in anticipation.

Let the games begin...


You might add,that Hans Blix is a lawyer and UN functionary.His main job was to prevent war.This was to be done by keeping troops in the desert until it was to hot to go.
You might like to compare WMD with large scale drugs finds in California.


Peace in George Bush's time. Credit where credit is due.


Speaking of giving credit where credit is (not) due, Ms. Pelosi made the following statement in an interview:

Source is Newsbusters.org:

Deep in an interview the House Speaker granted to the editorial board of the hometown San Francisco Chronicle, Abe Greenwald found this eyebrow-raising passage:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians -- they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians.


Her Persian genuflective renders her incoherent. Goodwill my ass, they want to vaporize Tel Aviv.


Of course, to carry on the Kerry theme; it will be a peaceful morning when they do so.


Kites will be flying.

Michael Smith

I am a supporter of the idea that the way to fight terrorism is to end the states that sponsor it. I favor regime destruction, not regime change (or, alternatively, regime destruction followed by the imposition of OUR type of government, such as we did to both Japan and Germany after WWII).

For instance, consider how much better off we'd be right now if, after pulling Saddam Hussein from his spider hole, we'd simply shot him in the head right there on the spot, then brought all our troops back home and told the world, "That's what we do to people we consider to be a threat -- and if you put somebody like Hussein back in power, we're going to come back and bomb ALL OF YOU back to the stone age".

With that approach, there would be some chance of building public support for a similar campaign against Iran.

What Bush has done, however, is set the precedent that any use of our military against another country obligates us to:

1) Protect the civilians of that country by carefully targeting only regime elements and locations, followed by having our military act as a domestic police force, and:

2) Allow the people to exercise the "right to self-determination", even if that means they form a government hostile to our ideals and friendly with our sworn enemies like Iran.

Permanent victory - defined as the permanent elimination of the threat to the U.S. -- is highly unlikely under those constraints.

Instead, what we get is a long, drawn-out affair that the American people will inevitably turn against. And then we'll get the election of someone truly dangerous like pacifist/socialist Obama.

I am not a Bush-basher, but the unfortunate truth is that Bush has largely succeeded in discrediting the very idea of using offensive military force to destroy threats from abroad. And as a result, we are now in for an extended period of pacifist international appeasement and diplomacy -- which will only embolden our enemies and make them stronger.


I think Howard Dean has a very small vocabulary. He's now used the word "extraordinary" about 100 times in 3 minutes.

He goes on to say "Bush stole the election".

The man hasn't gotten any better over time.


Michael Smith, causing anarchy in a socially dysfunctional region might worsen the insanity that causes al Qaeda and allow al Qaeda types to set up a government in the vacuum.

I still think Bernard Lewis was right. We need to install governments that give these societies the opportunity to grow less insane.


Bush hasn't set that precedent Mr. Smith.

Roosevelt set it.

Abraham Lincoln set it.

Harry Truman set it.

You might not like it, but directed assassinations, which is essentially what you are proposing, have never worked out very well. You create a vaccuum, and something is going to fill it. In Afghanistan that was the Taliban. In Iran it was the Ayatollah. We've been down this road.


Well, MS, maybe so. On the other hand, complex societies need a source of civil order, and who better than the US with a variable coalition of allies from among the functioning democracies.


Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war," The Hill's Sam Youngman reports.

This really isn't a surprise. It is just a modern version of the old anti-war BS from the Vietnam era: It takes two to fight. Using this logic, they argued that if the US just chose not to fight and left Vietnam, the North would stop fighting too. It just goes to show that Kerry has learned nothing from the past 35 years.


"What group of fools nominated that clown?"

Kerry is a creature of the Imperious Hair People.The Mycelium , consisting of a mass of branching, thread-like hyphae,burrow down into the cranium and devour the brain.This spreads via the wearing of borrowed hat wear.It is particularly virulent in humid jungle conditions.
Sad to say your man is now a walking fungus.


How can you learn when your brain's been all seared?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Looks like Kerry has caught Obama Answer Syndrome; the need to constantly revisit your original answer until you've transformed it into the exact opposite of what you first said.


From the link: Responding to Kerry's claim, RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said: "It’s absolutely critical that the next Commander in Chief understands the challenges America faces."

I think it's critical that the next RNC spokesman understand the subjunctive tense.

Soylent Red

Other way around I think Patrick. Kerry's been at this for a lot longer. Really, Obamessiah is beginning to act like Kerry in many ways.

It's creepy that the Dems can only seem to come up with one kind of candidate. This one just happens to be a different color.


Sorry bout the off topic here but a poster from Little Green Footballs seems to have found a Soros-McClellan connection.


Also off topic to this thread, but related to Rocco's post; the politico apparently got their hands on the original book proposal...which is markedly different from the book itself. Information can be found on politico.com under the title:

Exclusive: McClellan pitch softer on Bush


A degree or so seperation between McClellen's book and Soros-big surprise. With the "Count Every Vote...except for the votes that we don't" shindig today, I'm sure the air is going to get sucked out of the news cycle for the book. Interesting comparison between McClellen's ghost written fictional musings and Feith's researched schloarship. Comfort food til the convention-curious if it comes with a set of toxin-free crayons.

Also Rocco, something that you might have a theory about something I was thinking about the other day-do you have any idea why Soros has such a visceral hatred for George Bush? At this point-money and access doesn't seem to quite cut it and some sort of personal slight wouldn't seem to explain the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars.


"It's creepy that the Dems can only seem to come up with one kind of candidate. This one just happens to be a different color."

Which one?


What George Soros will eventually understand is that pouring money to establish a functioning polity is fundamentally ethically different than pouring money into an already functioning polity. The former is stimulative, the latter perversive. If he already understands that, then he is evil, and the source of his enmity for Bush may be simply that he is in opposition to Bush on methods of encouraging the expression of a free polity.


John Kerry is Reporting For Duty


Looks like Kerry has caught Obama Answer Syndrome; the need to constantly revisit your original answer until you've transformed it into the exact opposite of what you first said.

All the while criticizing those you end up agreeing with.


PeterUK: The Mycelium

Kerry went to school where Aristotle taught?


To carry my 12:41 analogy further, regime change, whether by stimulating a polity with money or with military, seems to be agreed by both. Soros is the one who would want to continue the occupation, so to speak, by continued infusion of public policy money, artificially, into an already established polity. The analogy is sound and direct, and makes Soros the one in favor of occupation, and Bush the one in favor of indigenous polity.


Which one?

Binny & Smith call their new crayon color " Red Ken " red. Its all the rage on this side of the pond.


Now, that's funny, GMax; isn't he the one who lost in the British Watermelon Rebellion?


Better, 'The London Watermelon Rebellion'?

Well, we've got the Boston Tea Party. Why shouldn't they have a history framing moment?


"Kerry went to school where Aristotle taught?"

Yes, he was a big disappointment to Ari.But you know how it is? Contacts,father endowed the swimming pool...


The three proper parallels are to Lumumba, in the old Belgian Congo (formerly Zaire,)
Trujillo in Santo Domingo, and Diem in South Vietnam; you could also add Kassem in Iraq. The chaos that came after Lumumba's assassination, led to a civil war where Moises Tshombe was supposed to prevail. In stead Mobutu, got the upper hand, and Larry
Devlin,the regional handler eventually ended up as his retainer;along with future Jackie Kennedy squire Maurice Templesman. The war errupted again in the late 90s, after Kabila used the chaos after the Rwandan massacre to effect a campaign. That
was the second best case scenario; a corrupt
violent oligarchy. Trujillo, always an embarassment to everyone but the most reactionary; was dispatched by members of
the Spaillat clan. Within two years, their was a coup d'etat and the old junta resumed in office. Turmoil, led to the open US intervention which only then Lt. Mccaffrey and Elmore Leonard's Cat Chaser; seem to record. For the longest time, Trujillo factotum Balaguer was in power over some
30 years. Santo Domingo, is not a showcase
for anybody; except for tourism. The Diem
hit, championed by the liberal wing of State
and CIA (Richardson, the sole opponent was forced out)well that worked well. Kassem's
'retirement' by a faction of Baathists, considered more respectable by the duo of
Copeland (the father of the Police'sdrummer)
and Eichelberger, a former advertising executive who made such a bang up choice with Nasser, a decade before, chose poorly. Result a Sunni nationalist oligarchy with an increasingly narrow base, that turned to the Soviets (despite their anti-communist reputation)and France in that order. Which in fits and starts, led to our current predicament.



I think Soros is a self hating Jew with a pro-Palestinian agenda. Seems to be a common theme among the left these days. What did you have in mind?

richard mcenroe

You don't get it. Kerry, Obama, Hillbillary... these are the BEST the Democrats.

You can look at the GOP primaries and see that the Republicans were at least offered a genuine choice betweem candidates of different values, convictions and policies.

But there ain't a lick of difference between the Democrats.


What did you have in mind?

Don't really know-his hatred seems irrational given the level of access he still enjoys. Money, with the number of zeros he deals with, would seem like an abstraction, so if the Bush Administration were bad for business he could go into a holding pattern until it blows over.


Don't really know-his hatred seems irrational given the level of access he still enjoys.

Seems to me he's a hard core Marxist, communist, socialist. Look at Maxine Waters, what's her problem?? What other explanation do you need? It's for the people!! Si, Si, Puedo!!!!!!!


Of course in the if you don't have the facts, you make up stuff file; here's
Daniel Benjamin, one of the Clinton's
supposed terrorist wranglers on the NSC
(who's been wrong on the surge, among
many miscalculations)dismissing the Simon Fraser U study; comparing it to the Larry Johnson, "June 2001" article. and 'memory holing' theFadl/Akef/Al Oudah developments:

The comments to this entry are closed.