Can anyone name one program that has been good for the country in the last 5 years....not talking about companies...our country....

I can name quite a few, but they were all Democratic initiatives.
Head Start is arguably the most successful early education program that was ever created.
Too bad the Republicans want to kill it off.

Why is not this promoted?-------------------- SHOCK & AWE------------------------
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—grew by 52% more under Democrats.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing Democrat’s hero-CLINTON—versus Republican’s hero--REAGAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.JOBS—grew by 43% more under Clinton.
2.GDP---grew by 57% more under Clinton.
3.DOW—grew by 700% more under Clinton..
4.NASDAQ-grew by 18 times as much under Clinton.
4.SPENDING--grew by 28% under Clinton---80% under Reagan.
5.DEBT—grew by 43% under Clinton—187% under Reagan.
6. DEFICITS—Clinton got a large surplus--grew by 112% under Reagan.
7.NATIONAL INCOME—grew by100% more under Clinton.
8.PERSONAL INCOME—Grew by 110% more under Clinton.
SOURCES—Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.Gov)--Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)—Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
www.the-hamster.com (chart taken from NY Times)
National Archives History on Presidents. www.nara.gov
Clarence Swinney-Political Historian
Please submit comments to cwswinney@netzero.net or P.O. Box 3411-Burlington NC-27216

Liberating Iraq and spreading the wealth of freedom and democracy through the middle east. Or did you miss the part about Lebanon's uprising, the voting in Saudi, the liberalizing of politics in Egypt, and the start of withdrawl from Gaza by Israel?

Liberating Iraq while liberating the US treasury of 300 BILLION. YEA!! Now Iraqiis can worry every time they leave home instead of being able to avoid problems by being low-profile compliant members of the populace.

I challenge you to find Regime change in the first 15 reasons stated in the Joint resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq. I also challenge you to find authorization in that same resolution for an extended occupation of Iraq.

The US had what to do with the events in Lebanon? Unless we assisinated former PM Hariari (sp) the US had NOTHING to do with this. Doesn't count!

Let's see, Saudi men can elect half of their town councils? Big progress! They are still sending young men into Iraq to fight! Real good ally there. Placate the masses a bit but stay firmly in control. Check Bismark (Germany circa WWI).

Yasir Arafat's death is the only reason for progress! Bush had what to do with this?
Here's why Arafat's death was the key. According to "Yasir Arafat - a political biography" Arafat has been suppressing the faction within PA/PLO leadership who wanted to negotiate and/or co-exist with Isreal for years. He could never bring himself to completely renounce the PLO's original goal of wiping Isreal off the map. Accordingly, he could never bring himself to shut down his extremist groups.

Interestingly, the strongest members of faction willing to make peace, are the men who have taken over since he died. Coincidence that they are willing to treat with Isreal -- not really. They've been inclined toward negotiating for years. Not attributable to Bush!

None of these "achievements" qualify. Try again.

Captain Lee,
How you doing?
Shot anyone with your AK47 Kalishnakof communist made rifle yet? (favorite weapon of Osama bin Laden) Heh.
Did you miss me? :D
You must be up for more abuse, or you wouldn't be here, right?
Ready for another beating? Okay then...

Bush's war for oil has sure made a big impact on oil prices now, hasn't it?
Why is it that we have a fascist leader who is sooooooo in bed with energy money that he wakes up with oil on him, but Bush will not do a damn thing to help the average American with the unbelievable hike in prices?
Didn't we steal the Iraqi oil? Yes, we did, according to executive order 13303.
Go ahead, Captain. Blame it on Clinton like you did last time I brought this up. :D
I read from the Bush regime's own report that terrorism has risen dramatically.
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism - Washington Post

"The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week."
...
"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data."

I guess you have your work cut out for you, now that Bushes have created the perfect recruiting tool.
Bush invades the holy land, and call it a "crusade". Good job. Where is Zarquawi, Mr. Bush? In custody? Dead? No?
How about Osama. In custody? Dead? No?
Wow. Your president sure has his priorities screwed up.
He lets the real terrorists go free, and attacks countries illegally and immorally without cause, and forces our brave men and women in uniform (you included) to fight for oil and natural gas.

Iraq is NOT liberated, it is occupied.
They do NOT have a constitution. A real democracy creates that document first, and that document determines the rules of government. You cannot have fair elections without it, because without a constitution, the people don't know what government they are voting for. What Iraqis DID overwhelmingly vote for was an end to occupation, and they didn't get that, hence the increase in violence against their oppressors. Freedom? Democracy? Iraqis have neither. That is just another Bush lie.
I heard recently the the CIA spook Chalaby and a relative of his now hold office, even though they did not receive anything like a winning vote. How is that possible in a true democracy? That answer is that it is NOT possible in a democracy.
How is Iraq anything like a peaceful and democratic place? The Iraqis voted for a religiously based government, and that vote was misreported, according to UN monitors. Another rigged election. You neocons sure love a rigged election! The straw man argument about "peace in the Middle East" is now officially fraud. We are not buying the lie, Captain. I wish that I could be confident in the idea that you would be convinced by any argument that I have to present, but I have learned that your mind is mostly closed. I hope to see some elements of factual basis for your arguments.

As Rothgar pointed out so well, Lebanon has nothing to do with Bush's policy, unless there was another CIA assasination. I would not put it past the CIA, since they killed the leader of Iran all those years ago.

Voting in Saudi? Do you even know how many people voted, and what the vote was for?
Here is what I found on the subject:
BBC NEWS: Saudi women barred from voting
Yeah, women should not be part of any democracy, right? Wrong.
Women are essential in any democracy, but a theocracy like Saudi? No way.
Women will never vote while the Sa 'Ud family rules.
The current Prince had his brother killed when his brother suggested electoral reforms. This effort is a token to avoid a war between relgious factions of men, that's all. It doesn't give the officials any real power, and that, I believe, is why so many people (two thirds!) didn't even bother to vote. They know it means nothing.
This article, from the Washington Post:

"Since Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdul Aziz bin Saud, brought this region into the kingdom, promising Shiites the freedom to live and worship as they wished, the government has rarely kept its promises, Shiite leaders here say. Though thousands of Shiites work in the area's oil refineries, they have never risen much above the lowest ranks at Saudi Aramco, the behemoth state oil company whose headquarters are a few miles south of here in Dhahran.
Social unrest here has often been triggered by outside events, making Iraq's recent elections particularly worrisome to Saudi leaders,..."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/saudi.elections/

"Fewer than one in three men eligible to vote did so.
"They have to convince people to actually take part in it and to show some sign of effort or interest in it," said Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi oil and security analyst.
There are plenty of candidates -- 1,800 nationwide -- but their powers as municipal councilors will be very limited, and as many will be appointed as elected.
One Saudi watcher guards against high expectations:
"It's going to be no cure all for all of the problems of Saudi Arabia nor for the problems of the relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia,"

I believe that the modern "liberalizing of Egypt" started with Anwar Sadat. The people in power currently in Egypt are very right wing, but the people of Egypt are far more moderate, generally. The people of Egypt held HUGE protests against the American invasion of Iraq, remember? Three protesters were murdered by police. They are protesting AGAINST Bush, and the government of Egypt was NEVER on board with this illegal and immoral war.

Ariel Sharon's policies are NOT following Bush's "Roadmap to Pieces", generally. Sharon is following the part about a pullout of Israeli terrorists from lands seized since Sept. of 2000, but the Roadmap to Pieces doesn't addess anyone who has been victimized by Israelis prior to that date, which is the majority of the problem. Land and resource theft through violent means is terrorism, and if YOUR land was stolen and your wife and children murdered, I should think that you would be the first person to understand the value of blowing something up to retaliate. I'm not advocating violence, or saying that it's right, it's not. I just want you to see that this problem is generations old, and is not being helped by a president who wants more weapons.
The religious and ethnic war continues, despite anything that Bush has talked about, because the Roadmap to Pieces is a piece of shit. Only those presidents who truly want peace in the region have created any measure of success. Carter helped to create peace between Israel and Egypt, and that peace continues, despite Anwar Sadat's assasination by religious extremists. Clinton's efforts were not as successful with Israel and Palestine/Lebanon, but at least he made the effort. Bush just had someone write up a document, and then did nothing but talk about how great it was. The level of violence continues.
My view is that both sides have the blood of innocents on their hands. I believe that Israeli government policy of killing to take land is as responsible as retaliatory bombings are, because both stategies take lives of innocent people. Both are terrorist acts. Both must stop.
Captian Lee,
How do you explain this blatant escalation and taking of sides by the Bush regime?

Pentagon Proposes Sale of 100 Bunker-Busting Bombs to Israel
"The Pentagon notified Congress on Tuesday of a proposed sale to Israel of 100 guided bunker-busting bombs, a weapon which would significantly upgrade the Israel Air Force's offensive operational capability and one which analysts said could prompt concerns about a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran."

Clearly, Bush wants a nuclear war in the Middle East, not peace. No one in their right mind could possibly see this as anything other than sabre rattling, and a further destabilization of the region. It ups the stakes, and creates a dangerous game of brinksmanship. Clearly, sending nukes to the region is bad idea. What if the nukes end up in the hands of Zarqawi or some other terrorist organizer? Dumb move. Having nukes in the region that are not under the control of the American military is crazy stupid.
If you were of Arab decent, moving toward democracy in Iran, and wanting democratic reform, how would a nuclear bomb hitting your contry affect you?
I think that any reforms that have been made by the Iranian youth would be erased by such an attack by a fearful government. Nukes are NOT the answer. They are the problem.

The truth of this issue is this:
If neocons and the right wing believed in moral grounds for war, as has been falsely stated as one of the many lies to get troops into Iraq, then they would have urged their government to send troops to Darfur to stop the violence there. Bush has ignored UN resolutions to take action in Darfur, but he bullies the UN so that he can act alone in Iraq.
Executive Order 13303 condemns the Bush regime as the war criminals that they are, and the brave soldiers that fight for him should be deployed to help stop the "genocide" in the Sudan.
If Americans are going to be the world's police, then we should stop crimes, instead of doing them.
But you and I know, based on Executive Order 13303, that crimes have been committed by the Bush administration.
For the record, I do not blame the troops for following orders. I wish that Bush would stop blaming them, and prosecuting them for orders that came from his office, including illegal wars for oil, and torture that resembles that of the Nazi women's prison Ravensbruck.

Please post the music selection information that was broadcast between segments - it was not only beautiful it was powerful - female vocal harmony using "My Country 'tis of Thee" lyrics in the arrangement.

who was that? [!]

leecptinf wrote "Liberating Iraq and spreading the wealth of freedom and democracy through the middle east. Or did you miss the part about Lebanon's uprising, the voting in Saudi, the liberalizing of politics in Egypt, and the start of withdrawl from Gaza by Israel?"

Hey Cpt. Lee, dude, still in one piece ? Great to see you back, but you really must be one for a good licking. Why else would you drop by this page and drop such a heap o'shite ? You guys did a great job on Nicola Calipari by the way, blamed it on stress and inexperience. Great job ! The american public will gladly buy into that lie, no doubt. Depending on how you look at it Cpt. Sir, in a way, we liberated the man.

As far as "spreading the wealth of freedom and democracy" goes, I'm not all too sure anyone wants this. The american version of freedom is not the kind of freedom the world needs. What we do want and need is freedom from american imperialist hegemony. Democracy ? Look it up in the dictionary, Sir., especially the Real world meaning and definition of the word. I say, no thank you. I certainly do not want your version of democracy. So please do us all a favor and please try to limit the spreading of your ideals to your own back yard and not a neighboring country or a country overseas. In my opinion, if the USA does not fully comply with the ICC then it should not be militarily involved in any foreign affairs. Isn't it time we stop letting war criminals get away with murder?

Ahhhh
Now there's the liberals I know and love. I've missed you guys. BTW, I hate this new format. Been busy lately. I'm out of the army now (bullet in the spine does that to ya) but since I can still walk and talk and all that good stuff, I've joined the state department to continue service in Iraq as a national security advisor. I'm currently working as a consultant for Iraqi special police forces, very fun, very cool job.

So, lets see what we can see:

The US had what to do with the events in Lebanon?

Providing an example of democracy in the middle east, showing that it was a possibility. The whole domino theory that was the rally cry for conservatives last year when we were told we were dreaming if we thought we could build a democratic Iraq. Pretty much the living by example that encouraged Lebanon to throw out it's corrupt, Syrian supported gov't and Syrian troops.

Oh, you might ask how I get that perspective. Well, I'm working with a guy right now who is from Lebanon and was the US Embassy local security coordinator for 17 years. Very intense, very credible person I listen to when he discusses Arab sentiments and how I'm supposed to act towards senior gov't officials.

Bush's war for oil has sure made a big impact on oil prices now, hasn't it?

Pity it wasnt a war for oil. Guess this proves what we've been saying all along, eh?

Let's see, Saudi men can elect half of their town councils? Big progress! They are still sending young men into Iraq to fight! Real good ally there. Placate the masses a bit but stay firmly in control. Check Bismark (Germany circa WWI).

Check Enland circa 1865. Less than a quarter of the male inhabitants had the franchise and their elected reps had limited say in gov't. Pretty much saying the Middle East is about as developed politically as the Middle Ages. It's a starting point, that's something aint it? Or should we just stop encouraging steps towards the light and leave the whole region in darkness?

Yasir Arafat's death is the only reason for progress! Bush had what to do with this?

Not really looking at the PA side of things. It's more the pressure brought to bear on Israel and the withdraw from Gaza. Or do you think it's because of Sharon's generous heart?

I read from the Bush regime's own report that terrorism has risen dramatically.

Interesting statistic, considering it's including all the events in Iraq as terrorist actions. I may be in a minority here, but I consider strikes against military targets not to be terrorist actions. (i.e., WTC was a terrorist attack, Pentagon was not). Take out the numbers in Iraq and get back to me.

Where is Zarquawi, Mr. Bush? In custody? Dead?

We just missed him in Feb. Ambush set up to take him along roadway, but the lead car he sent out 1/2 mile ahead triggered the ambush. He was in a pick-up following that swerved and sped away. Pursuit caught the vehicle, but not before he was able to bail out without being seen. Still, we captured his laptop computer and thousands of dollars in cash. Was very close, very very close.

How do you explain this blatant escalation and taking of sides by the Bush regime?

Because it's in our interests to take the side of a democratic and friendly nation over a theocratic and hostile nation. That if the need arises to strike militarily at the nuclear facilities in Iran, perhaps it's better to use a proxie state like Israel to do the heavy lifting, then step in as an impartial mediator to negotiate a settlment. It's a little thing I like to call 'realpolitic'.


Oh, by the way, please do some critical research before posting. Bunker busters are not nukes. Yes, we are developing a form of nuclear warhead for destroying underground facilities, but those have yet to leave the design table. The weapons being shipped to Israel are conventional. The NPT plus US policy prevent the sale, exchange, or granting of nuclear weapons to anyone.

Having nukes in the region that are not under the control of the American military is crazy stupid.

No doubt about it, which is why there isnt a single nuclear weapon with an American flag on it in the region. Only aboard US Navy ships will you find a nuclear weapon. Now the Brits on the other hand deployed their MANPADS, completely without our knowledge or authorization. Then again, they ARE a sovereign nation.

Executive Order 13303

Executive Order
Executive Order Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has An Interest

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.

Sec. 2. (a) As of the effective date of this order, Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, Executive Order 12724 of August 9, 1990, and Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003, shall not apply to the property and interests in property described in section 1 of this order.

(b) Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under Executive Orders 12722, 12724, or 13290, or under the authority of IEEPA or the UNPA, except as hereafter terminated, modified, or suspended by the issuing Federal agency and except as provided in section 2(a) of this order.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) The term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) The term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) The term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any juris-diction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;

(d) The term "Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" means any petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-origin oil inventories, wherever located; and

(e) The term "Development Fund for Iraq" means the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the name of the fund.

Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulga-tion of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the UNPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their statutory authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

(b) Nothing contained in this order shall relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Sec. 5. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 22, 2003.

I fail to see what the issue is. The Iraqi Development Fund is one I'm fairly well involved in as it is how the new Iraqi gov't is paying it's military, it's police, it's health care, it's infrastructure reconstruction, and a host of other issues. This order, as I read it, ensure the preservation of Iraqi petrol dollars for Iraq. How you construe a war crime out of this boggles my mind, and I've met some real war criminals lately.

they would have urged their government to send troops to Darfur to stop the violence there.

Amen brother, but I imagine if we did, then the banners carried by the protesters in the streets would again accuse us of going after another oil producing state. Sudan has been producing more oil lately ya know. You ready to drop the 'no blood for oil' banner and join me in organizing an intervention?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

Hey Cpt. Lee, dude, still in one piece ?

Still have the important pieces, even if I'm a few pieces short these days.

you really must be one for a good licking. Why else would you drop by this page and drop such a heap o'shite ?

I long for intelligent conversation at times. Sadly, this is the best I can do. :}

You guys did a great job on Nicola Calipari by the way, blamed it on stress and inexperience.

You are mistaking the Italian analysis for the American one. At least get your sources right.

In my opinion, if the USA does not fully comply with the ICC then it should not be militarily involved in any foreign affairs.

ICC is an unconstitutional abridgement of American sovereignty, thus no governemtn of the United States can legally enter into it's provisions. The Constitution of the United States does not permit the degredation of sovereignty.

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done." Leonardo da Vinci

So does that mean you're back on board with removing Saddam and preventing Iran and N Korea from getting nuclear weapons?

Cpt. Lee wrote:

Ahhhh
Now there's the liberals I know and love. I've missed you guys.

You love and missed us? How sweet, but insincere.
It might even have been believable, had you not insulted our collective intelligence.
But, hey, that's your style, Lee.
If you don't have an argument, an insult will do just fine,
or a straw man argument. :D

On a more serious note:
Sorry to hear that you were wounded. Honestly.
Shot in the back? Lucky that it wasn't more serious.
Apparently, you were not wounded by a terrorist?
I beg to differ sir.
I would define anyone who shoots another person in the back a terrorist, or at least a scumbag, but that's me.
I find it very interesting that you seem to protect your enemy from harsh terms, if not bullets.
Maybe your prefer to call them "Resistance Fighters"? Heh.

Cpt. Lee wrote:

Providing an example of democracy in the middle east, showing that it
was a possibility.

Democracy in the Middle East existed long before Bush laid illegitimate claim to it.
What about Turkey? They have a parliament that rejected this sick war utterly, and kicked Bush's people out of their country. Yup. Freedom was on the march long before Bush.
Iran is on the path to democracy, but the righties will not accept the truth of it. That also has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush. Lebanon's situation has nothing to do with Bush whatsoever, and you dodged my comments on the "Roadmap to Pieces" entirely. Facts are always a problem for the righties. They get in the way of good propaganda.

The whole domino theory that was the rally cry for
conservatives last year when we were told we were dreaming if we thought
we could build a democratic Iraq.

Nice try. We all know that it was the NEOCON rallying lie, and since
you bought into the lie,
that officially makes you a NEOCON, right in line with the Project for a
New Imperialist Century. I know that you know of the PNAC, hell, you are living their agenda.

Bush has NOT created a democracy in Iraq. That is another lie. You have no facts to back up that claim.
The Bush regime has tried to create the illusion of democracy,
and only those that don't know that true facts buy into this big lie.
You dodged the arguments that I presented, namely:
Iraq cannot have fair elections in a war zone;
cannot be a democracy under unwanted and actively resisted occupation;
cannot have democracy with unelected CIA operatives in government;
cannot have democracy while Executive Order 13303 exists, removing sovereignty for Iraqis;
cannot have democracy when elections in Iraq are rigged, according to election monitors;
cannot have democracy when the person that is voted in is rejected for his religious views;
cannot have democracy without a constitution or a bill of rights, or anything that looks like a charter;
cannot have democracy with a Viceroy in charge, or with an ambassodor who is a known war criminal (Negroponte), or with an unelected minister (Chalabi) who is wanted in Jordan for bank theft;
cannot have democracy when journalists are killed in large numbers;
cannot have democracy when nepotism is used by the CIA operative (Chalabi) to control the Ministry of Oil.
Not a war for oil? You bet your ass it is, but that is just one of the many illegal and immoral reasons for this sick farce.

In short, the whole argument that democracy has come to Iraq is bullshite. Pure bullshite.

Anyone who would be a coworker and buddy of yours is not what I would
consider an unbiased or credible source.
Try a news reporting agency or something else instead of another neocon who's views cannot be vetted.
You bashed Jayhawk for not using the right sources. Right back at ya, big guy.

Pity it wasnt a war for oil.

Yes it was. Executive Order 13303 is iron clad proof of the theft. It only protects OIL workers, and removes the right of Iraqis to own or control their own oil. It does NOTHING to protect any other "reconstruction" effort. That means that it is conclusive proof of theft.
Paul Wolfowitz, the PNAIC Iraq war architect, said that the U.S. was going to take the oil to force Iraq to pay for its own occupation and reconstruction, which is also in violation
of the Geneva Conventions.
He testified to this, under oath, on television.
It's on the public record as fact. Incontravertable proof.

I wrote:
I read from the Bush regime's own report that terrorism has risen
dramatically.

Cpt Lee wrote:

Interesting statistic, considering it's including all the events in Iraq
as terrorist actions. I may be in a minority here, but I consider
strikes against military targets not to be terrorist actions. (i.e., WTC
was a terrorist attack, Pentagon was not). Take out the numbers in Iraq
and get back to me.

Numbers? Ah! But there's the rub. Except for the generalities, the
Bush regime has scrubbed both this years numbers
and last years! They are hiding the data, so what you ask for is not
possible, now is it? Why are they hiding the data?
You dodged that because you didn't have a good response to the fact that the Bush regime is the most secretive regime in American history. Maybe you should file a Freedom of Information Act request, and get the data, and then you can share it with us in its entirety, so that we can debate it properly.
This shows that you didn't bother to read the report carefully.
Your bias sure does get in the way of learning the truth.
For the record, I do consider shooting someone in the back a terrorist
act, but hey, that would remove the incredible diversion that you want to follow on this topic.
I think that your quibbling about numbers obscures a larger reality,
which is that terrorist incidents are increasing
in number around the world.
That is fact, as reported by Bush's own people.
Why don't you get on board with everything that the neocons say? This is your ugly war, and you don't even want to truthfully debate the FACT that terrorism is on the rise.
How pathetic. How long will you be in denial, forever?
You should listen to the Bush progaganda more carefully, and toe the line.

Gotta go for now. More later...
I will leave you with yet another irrefutable LIE from the war for oil man himself:
--
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." -- George W. Bush
Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002

"A sound energy bill must meet four objectives: it must promote
conservation and efficiency...We're constantly looking for new
technologies to help Americans conserve. I mean, it makes sense, doesn't
it?
-- George W. Bush March 9th, 2005

I wrote:

"If neocons and the right wing believed in moral grounds for war, as has been falsely stated as one of the many lies to get troops into Iraq, then they would have urged their government to send troops to Darfur to stop the violence there. Bush has ignored UN resolutions to take action in Darfur."

Cpt. Lee replied:

Amen brother, but I imagine if we did, then the banners carried by the protesters in the streets would again accuse us of going after another oil producing state.

Baloney. Show me where true liberals have suggested this.
Besides, the contracts to major oil interests (including the Kuwait elite) have already been signed. From what I could see, American oil interests have not secured that oil, which may be why Bush and his crime family have not expressed an interest in the oil. It doesn't belong to them, and they can't steal it from our allies, the Kuwaitis, and others, lest he start yet another war with an ally.
Republicans have resisted any action in Darfur, and that is immoral, as Darfur has been officially declared "genocide" by this administration. Powell himself said as much.
I think that we agree that genocide is immoral, yes?
I think we agree that Darfur is genocide, yes?
I think then, that we should also agree that it is Republicans that have not taken action to stop it, and that makes them immoral, and not worthy of a vote to elect, so...
If you want to stop the genocide in Darfur, like you say, then join us in voting out the obstructionists who are preventing military aide to Sudan's oppressed.

Cpt. Lee wrote:

Sudan has been producing more oil lately ya know. You ready to drop the 'no blood for oil' banner and join me in organizing an intervention?

I will never retreat on the fact that Iraq is a war for oil. Never.
Geen Blud Voor Olie! <--- Dutch for "No Blood For Oil!" This is an international protest against the illegal and immoral war with our former ally, Iraq. The protests will end when the war ends. Get that straight.

Iraq is NOT Sudan, have you noticed?
This is yet another straw man argument that you present. You love the straw man, yes sir.
No one that I know of on the Left has said that Sudan is a war for oil to benefit the Bushies, and I keep up with the Left. I would have been upset with those that did say that. I don't see that anywhere. Show me the proof of it.
I am one of those that believes that people like Joe Lieberman should be forceablly removed from the Democratic party for his many votes with Republicans.
It has been Democrats, liberals and progressives that have been asking YOU neocons to join US in stopping the violence in Sudan, not the other way around.
It is your side, the neocons, that have blocked action. You are the neocons that control Congress and the Executive branch. You are the ones NOT taking action, letting 400,000 innocent people die a horrible death recently.
I am very glad that you are willing to join US, so... join us! Seriously.
We on the Left are glad to have you. Honestly. Get on board!
There is too much at stake to do nothing.
Sign the petitions here:
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
http://www.savedarfur.org/
Check out these stories about Darfur on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629980

NPR NEWS: Sudan, CIA Forge Close Ties, Despite Rights Abuses

Cpt. Lee cited this source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html
From your own source, a condemnation of the neocons, who did not act:

"Although Sudan agreed to disarm militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" in July 2004, the lack of progress led to an August 2004 U.N. Security Council resolution threatening punitive measures against Sudan 's oil industry if the situation did not improve. In October 2004, 3,500 African Union (AU) troops entered Darfur to police the situation, which a February 2005 U.N. commission concluded was no less serious than genocide."

Thank God for the AU, taking a leadership position on this issue.
Shame on George Bush and the neocons for doing nothing, and making lame excuses that make it sound like liberals are the stumbling block.
What crap! Please, Lee, you can do better than this.
Force your representatives to take action on Darfur, or vote Democratic.

I believe that Nicola Calipari was murdered protecting Giuliana Sgrena. Journalists are being murdered in this war at an alarming rate.
Unfortunately, the US military has covered this murder up, so that the truth cannot be fully known. They are afraid of the truth being known.
I heard Sgrena's eye witness account of the incident, and I believe her.
It's unfortunate that the US military seems intent on preventing an investigation to clear the name of the soldiers involved.
I understand that it is quite possible that Negroponte ordered Sgrena killed.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the architect of the Hounduran Death Squads had a journalist killed because she discovered war crimes on the part of the US military. Unfortunately, the evidence has been deliberately destroyed, so that we can never really know. A standard move by the most secretive administration in American history.

So does that mean you're back on board with removing Saddam and preventing Iran and N Korea from getting nuclear weapons?

Back from where? Another straw man argument. You are nothing if not reliable, Lee. :D
You lump three very different situations into one argument, and they have nothing to do with one another.
The US State Department themselves said that Hussein was not a threat, but that Kim Jong Ill definitely is.
As for Iran, I am not an expert, but I do know that the overwhelming majority is young, and they are achieving democratic reforms. I don't claim to be an expert on Iran's nuclear programs, but I do know that if we attack Iran, we will derail any democratic reforms that have already been made.
To compare these three very different situations is laughable.

As for North Korea:
For the record, I was ALWAYS on the side of preventing North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Always. The RadioLeft archives prove that.
The Bush regime has alllowed North Korea to create several nuclear weapons to their final stage under his watch, and reports also indicate that North Korea has more fissionalbe material to create yet more nukes. It is, in fact, the Bush supporters who want North Korea to become a nuclear power, in my opinion, as they have done nothing to stop these men from allowing Kim Jong Ill from making bombs and launching missles. Nothing.
We liberals are the party of "no nukes", remember? We are the ones raising this issue, not the neocons.
My Senator, Wayne Allard, was one of the sponsors of a bill to create new nuclears weapons, AKA "Bunker Busters" (his term, not mine), in violation of treaties and of common sense.
Meanwhile, the US under Bush is busy destroying the NNP treaty as fast as it can, setting the stage for a nuclear war for real.
It seems to me that you, as a neocon supporter, are promoting the idea that radical and dangerous governments be allowed access to weapons that would threaten the world.
Are you not concerned that terrorists will work with Kim Jong Ill to obtain a bomb? I am. Now to get rid of my pro-nuke, pro-illegal-war, pro-extremist Republican monster of a Senator, Wayne Allard. :D
Allard is a master of the Bait and Switch.

The NewsHour reports:

"North Korea, which pulled out of the NPT in January 2003, will not attend the review meeting. In February 2005 North Korea announced that it had created nuclear weapons. Weapons experts fear that this could create a domino effect in which other nations in the region acquire nuclear weapons, too.
"If North Korea becomes a nuclear weapon state, it won't be too long before Japan becomes a nuclear weapon state," Graham Allison of Harvard University told Voice of America.
If that happens, Allison says, it could start a nuclear arms race between Japan and China. Feeling threatened on all sides, South Korea would also want to possess nuclear weapons.
Experts also fear that North Korea, isolated with a failing economy, is likely to sell nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization or individual such as Osama bin Laden.
They also warn that North Korea would set a precedent for other countries: claim to be producing nuclear energy, withdraw from the NPT, and then create nuclear weapons.
"The 2005 NPT Review Conference is a vital opportunity for the United States and the international community to recommit to the treaty's goals," said Daryl Kimball of the Campaign to Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. "It is an opportunity we can't afford to squander." "

Too bad that Bush has already blown it. He is responsible for the possibility of an arms race in Asia. Good job, Bush, you war mongering moron.

And as for Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration said back in 2001 that he was "weak", and not a threat, and that he was "contained", unable to get weapons.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=2334
Secretary of State Colin Powell, 15 May 2001:

"The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.
So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful."

Condoleeza Rice, 29 July 2001:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Talk about Bait and Switch, these evil people are masters of it.

Sorry to hear you were wounded. Glad to hear that you are mostly operable -- Damn shame what is being done to you guys. I mean by the Bushies.

Concerning our example of Democratic governance.
Wasn't Rafiq Hariri the increasingly independent and quite popular FORMER PRIME MINISTER of LEBANON?.
I checked his Bio and he was PM from 1992 to 1998 then again from 2000 to 2004.

Now if I recall correctly, Prime Ministers are a part of the Democratic legacy that (at least when I took AP US History) led to our form of government.

So how does a 2003 invasion create an example of Democracy for a parlimentary government setup prior to 1992?


BTW: Want to explain the Parlimentary Government set up in IRAQ in the 1920's?

History from across the pond: All three Iraqi ethnic groups collaborated to brutally kill over 2000 British Solders between 1922 and 1924. TO suppress this uprising, the Brits carpet bombed and gassed the country then setup a parlimentary system as they left.

Man oh man Lee, you be wippin' today ! Your most important pieces really are still there ! In all sincerety, it really is good to have you back. Now on with the bash. I'll be back in a few to go further on the ICC bit, gotta run just now.

Cpt. Lee : "ICC is an unconstitutional abridgement of American sovereignty, thus no governemtn of the United States can legally enter into it's provisions. The Constitution of the United States does not permit the degredation of sovereignty."

from the Human Rights Watch on International Justice :
MYTH: The Court threatens sovereignty because it claims jurisdiction over citizens of countries, like the United States, that haven't ratified its treaty.

FACT: The Court will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies its treaty.

American citizens accused of crimes overseas are already subject to foreign jurisdiction. This is a basic and well-established principle of international law. If an American citizen or service member is accused today of a serious crime in Japan or Germany, for example, Japan or Germany have the right to try him, even if the United States wants to prosecute the crime itself. Countries that ratify the Rome Treaty are simply exercising their sovereign right to allow an international court to prosecute certain crimes committed on their territory rather than conducting these trials themselves.

The ICC will provide defendants with greater due process rights and protections than many countries to which the United States extradites its own citizens. Moreover, unlike national courts that try Americans, it must defer to American justice when the United States is willing to investigate and prosecute an alleged crime itself.

Please also refer to AMICC's response III.3 .

Human Rights Watch? You're kidding, right? You really expect me to look to them as an impartial authority on the ICC? That's like me refering you to the GOP official site for reference material. Come on man, you're slipping. Lets try that again.

Lee, there really isn't much impartiality available in this case. Human rights and the ICC go hand in hand. All the same, while researching readily available sources, the great divide between pro and con becomes quite obvious. On the side of sovereignty / those opposing the ICC, you have just about anyone and everyone - fighting "to save America from a loss of freedom and sovereignty". On the other side, those who support the ICC are generally progressive and/or pro-human rights. The latter is in the minority, the former the majority - in the USA. So much for justice and equality. To sum it up, any and all plausible arguments you may be able to find in support of the USA completely complying with the ICC will be coming from human rights organisations, the left and countries victimised by the USA. The US policy is plainly understood : criminal acts are to be considered criminal only if a country other than the US commits them. But what if the criminal act goes against the US ? 9/11 for example ? Quoting Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), "9/11 remains a crime against not only the US, but a crime against humanity. The perpetrators of 9/11 must be brought to justice. But no one nation can or should meet the task alone. International cooperation is mandatory. Only the ICC presents a workable framework for the functioning of an international justice system which will affirm the basic human rights of all people of all nations and will deliver the world from a so-called war on terror which ends up producing terror of its own."

Just what are we Americans afraid of ? The ICC has a narrow jurisdiction. It's designed to try citizens of ratifying nations for only three things: crimes against humanity, serious war crimes and genocide that happened after July 2002......this doesn't include the genocide against America's indigenous population, though we haven't heard the last word on this, yet. The US does actually have a lot to fear. Some would like to give it the authority to prosecute drug trafficking as well as such vague offences as "serious threats to the environment" and "committing outrages on personal dignity. give the ICC the authority to prosecute drug trafficking as well as such vague offences as "serious threats to the environment" and "committing outrages on personal dignity." Drug trafficking ? Oops, we're in trouble if the truth comes out. Serious threats to the environment ? Big trouble for the US. I guess the majority is right to oppose the ICC. Someone could end up in jail ! If I were to apply this mentality a wild west town in the US, our standpoint would be - we need a sheriff that'll arrest the right people at the right time thus protecting the interests of those who brought "business" to the city......we don't need a Judge.

But wait a minute.

Quoting an article from the CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, Senator John McCain (R- AZ) declared his support for the United States joining the International Criminal Court (ICC), asserting: “I want us in the ICC.” "Charles J. Brown, Citizens for Global Solutions’ President & CEO, who served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court said: “We can only hope that such sentiments go from John McCain’s mouth to George Bush’s ear. The International Criminal Court promotes accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It poses no threat to American interests and in fact reaffirms fundamental American values." “As the crisis in Darfur, Sudan demonstrates, the world no longer can afford the luxury of creating ad hoc specialized tribunals. The ICC is the only option available to help bring a quick end to the genocide in Darfur,” said Brown."

Now as far as our Constitution goes........we can do an analysis and comparison later on if you wish. There's a lot a dis-information available but also some good hard facts to combat such. I see the US complying with the ICC in the near future, but only after a few major changes. Outright opponents of the ICC are gonna lose the fight, as they should. The ICC on the other hand stands a good chance of losing it's international credibility and with that the basis for it's existence if it allows a rogue nation, guilty of numerous crimes against humanity and the environment step in and bend the rules to suit it's fancy in an effort to protect their more prominent criminals.

The only other option available is for the US to leave the UN, further the oppositions against the ICC and go it alone, until some day soon when more and more people decide to take affirmative actions and push back. Ouch! That can really hurt.

By the way, you are the second one I know of that has said the Pentagon was a military target. Guess who the other one was ? You're in good company Sir. I admire that analysis.

...just came across something worth looking into on answers.com where both sides are represented. This page also has loads of links to other pages. Looks to be quite useful. I like this part : "opponents contend that the neither the ICC nor the United Nations has any real power to enforce the extradition of war criminals from signatory states. Therefore, any kind of military action to force compliance would have to be undertaken (in large part) by the U.S., action which would expose U.S. officials to spurious charges of war crimes."

and this "Two states (the United States and Israel) initially signed the treaty, but later announced that they were withdrawing their signature. However, supporters and opponents of the treaty dispute as to whether it is legally possible for a state to withdraw its signature from a treaty."

There was no need to withdraw the signature. Without ratification, the signature was only one step in the direction of compliance, not equal with complete compliance.

Back to the subject at hand - "Bait and Switch Bush"........I had a sneaky feeling on this right from the start. They can't kill SC so their attacks are intended to weaken it. And you're absolutely right Geoff....no matter who you are, you're just another slave to Big Business.

Cpt. Lee wrote "Bunker busters are not nukes."

"North Korea may be firing missiles, but when it comes to nuclear proliferation and eroding international controls, the biggest bully on the block right now is in Washington." from AlterNet's Scrapping Global Treaties by Laura Flanders, AlterNet. Posted May 4, 2005.

"So what's the problem, the NPT or the erosion of the NPT? Former President Carter wrote this week that the U.S. is the biggest culprit: "While claiming to be protecting the world -- and Americans from proliferation threats -- American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons including antiballistic missiles earth penetrating bunker busters an perhaps some new small bombs. They have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear states. ""

I couldn't agree more.

And this from our favorite heap of lies, Faux Newz ;
"The RNEP is a B61 or B83 nuclear bomb re-fitted with an extra-hard nose that would allow the weapon to pierce the earth before detonating. It is hardly a new concept: government scientists have been studying them since the end of the Cold War, and under former President Bill Clinton the B61 was altered to penetrate up to 10 feet of frozen soil.
Because RNEPs are modified versions of existing weapons, building them does not violate any of Washington's nuclear treaties. Supporters of RNEPs are quick to point out that they are not new weapons, just "new capabilities." But critics fear that the research will lead to new testing, which may present Washington, D.C. with a host of diplomatic problems."
The Article title "Efficacy of Bunker-Buster Nukes Up for Debate".

You can bet your bottom dollar the US will be in for some serious diplomatic problems if this goes through and rightly so.

Who's the bully on the block ? US

Search Faux Newz for "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" and the words "Nukes" and "Nuclear" pop up all over the place. Is Faux Newz wrong ?

"Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)" not Nukes ?

Oh, i get ya, they are Nucular. Right.

Short on time, so I'll make this short and drop by later. So let me hit y'all in the head with some facts and get some sleep.

GBU-28, Earth Penetrating 5000 lb 'bunker buster' is the type of bomb being offered to Israel.

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is still in development and US policy would prohibit the transfer of such a weapon to ANY other nation.

Clear now? Good. So much for that strawman argument.

US Wants to Sell Israel ‘Bunker-Buster’ Bombs

Lee,
Hit me on the head? Ha! Yeah, right.
So far, you have lost every single argument with me, and you lose this one too.
You falsely assert that I created a straw man. This is yet another lie.
The truth is that I made a common error, not being a weapons expert, based on deliberate misinformation and terminology confusion created by a Republican Senator.
You are the one that loves things that kill, not me.
I recall fighting against "nuclear bunker buster" bombs when my Senator promoted them. Those are his words, not mine.
You are the one lying about Bush creating a democracy anywhere.
It just isn't so. No facts support it.
I am man enough to admit to an error, and correct it, and correct YOUR false assertion as well.
I believe in facts and accuracy, unlike you.
You listen neocons who do nothing but lie, and then accuse me? Get a grip.
Here I get to hit you in the face with your own diversionary lie.
You really do enjoy a beating, don't you?

Here is the basis for my confusion, created by my own fascist monster of a Senator, Wayne Allard, who sponsored a bill to create "nuclear bunker buster" bombs, AKA "mini-nukes".
Here is a list of links that all refer to "nuclear bunker buster" bombs:
"Bunker Busters": Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Debate
The Bush Administration's Misguided Quest for Low-Yield Nuclear Bunker Busters
THE NUCLEAR BUNKER BUSTER
The "Nuclear Bunker-Buster"
Senate backs A-bomb research
Research and development of "atomic bunker busters" and low-yield "mini-nukes."
Study Finds Nuclear Bunker Buster Effective, but With Collateral Damage
RNEP would be intended for the role of a "nuclear bunker buster"
The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP or Bunker Buster bomb)
Nuclear earth penetrator weapons, sometimes called “bunker busters”
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), that cosy-sounding little 'bunker-buster'"

There are many many other links that reference "nuclear bunker buster" bombs, too many to list here.

And this, from the New Republic:

"Since taking office, President George W. Bush has dangerously and unnecessarily blurred the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. Prodded by nuclear weapons scientists and a few narrow-minded ideologues--such as Wayne Allard, chair of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and Curt Weldon, number two on the House Armed Services Committee--the administration has been groping since early 2001 to find military missions for tactical nuclear weapons. In the past few weeks, administration officials have made not-so-veiled threats that the United States might use nuclear weapons against Iraq. These threats have alarmed the public and hurt America's image--and for no good reason: Tactical nuclear weapons have little if any military value."

I incorrectly understood (and the article does not clarify - read it) that the "bunker busters" were nukes. The truth is that they could, in theory, be fitted with nuclear warheads by the Israeli military, according to this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html

"While the Pentagon's "Big Ones" are classified as "conventional weapons", the official statements fail to mention that the same "bunker buster bombs" launched from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber or an F-16 aircraft can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11 is the " nuclear version" of its "conventional" BLU-113 counterpart. The B61-11 was developed from the old "conventional" B61-7 "gravity bomb."

How is someone who is not a weapons expert to know the difference between a nuclear B61-11 and the non-nuclear GBU-28?
The answer is that legislators like the fascist Wayne Allard have gone out of their way to obscure the differences, by using the very same term for both weapons. That's not my fault.
Both are still weapons of mass destruction.

This whole sidetrack diversion that you have created misses the point, probably deliberately so.
The original point was that Israel's conflict with Lebanon has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bush regime, and that giving Israel more weapons is a crazy stupid idea, because Israel has demonstrated a willingness in the past to use whatever weapons that they have. No doubt they will use these weapons as well, which will be an escalation, not a peaceful act, and certainly not a step toward democracy. My point stands, because you have not presented a single fact to counter this truth.
Our government should not be delivering weapons systems of any kind to Israel, who have become a warlike people.
We should be encouraging peace, which is a REQUIREMENT for a true democracy. Escalating the conflict prevents peace, and prevents democracy, and does NOTHING to help Lebanon, contrary to your assertion.

You have yet to prove that Lebanon had anything whatsoever to do with the policies of the Bush regime, and your focus on my ignorance (which has been created by a Republican Senator) of certain weapons systems only proves that you are anxious to divert the issue from an argument that you lost.

Republicans, Neocons, Warmongers,
Listen to the words of Dear Leader! He instructs you.
You must obey blindly and without question.

"See, free nations are peaceful nations.
Free nations don't attack each other.
Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- George W. Bush Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

But-They will not tell the people-----------84 good things done by Democrats-----------------

Can anyone name ten for Republicans

Credit for this information goes my friend, a great mind, and his terrific site

Ray Dubuque—www.liberalslike Christ.org-----------------

1.civilian conservation corps
2.public works adm.--works progress adm
3.unemployment relief act
4.national industrial recovery act
5.national housing act
6.federal communications act
7.national labor relations act
8.fair labor standards act (min wage & max hours laws)
9.GI bill of rights
10.social security act
11.Tennessee valley (power) authority
12.rural electrification act
13.full employment act
14.permanent school lunch program
15.integration of armed forces
16.veterans emergency housing act
17.public health service act
18.national housing act
19.marshall plan
20.peace corps
21.aid to dependent children program
22.small business investment act
23.establishment of arms control and disarmament agency
24.consumer drug protection laws
25.equal pay act
26.manpower development and retraining act
27.clean air act
28.mental health and mental retardation act
29.college and vocational education act
30.civil rights act
31.voting rights act
32.mass transportation act
33.omnibus poverty act (office of economic opportunity, vista, job corps and public assistance programs)
34.war on poverty
35.head start (for pre-school children)
36.land conservation fund
37.permanent food stamp program
38.appalachia regional development act
39.elementary and secondary education act
40.higher education act
41.older Americans act (medicare and medicaid)
42.law enforcement assistance act
43.immigration reform act
44.freedom of information act
45.fair housing act
46.housing and urban development (low income housing )
47.clean water restoration act
48.coal mine health and safety act
49.child protection
50.federal ethics code
51.civil service reform
52.creation of superfund (cleanup of toxic waste)
53.secretary of health joseph califano(fight tobacco health threat)
54.votings rights act extension
55.highway and mass transit funding bill
56.civil rights restoration act
57.head start expansion
58.Americans with disabilities act
59.major tax increase on the wealthy to fight deficits created by Reagan and Bush
60.family medical leave act
61.attempted to extend/or improve health insurance coverage for millions of Americans
62.restoration of democracy to haiti
63.restoration of peace to bosnia
64.promotion of peace in south Africa
65.promotion of peace in northern Ireland
66.promotion of peace in Israel and Palestine
67.increases in minimum wage
68.promotion of spending on inner-city schools
69.opposition to abolition of safety net for the poor
70.protection of social security and medicare
71.promotion of justice for victims of racism
72.protection of children from cancer inducing tobacco industry
73.constantly frustrated efforts to enact thorough campaign finance
74.appointment of many minorities and women to cabinet positions
75.resolution of long-standing black farmers discrimination issues
76.leadership role in nato’s campaign to stop ethnic cleansing in kosovo.
77.major efforts to challenge the dangerous proliferation of guns in America
78.ameri-corps
79. pay their way party—1960 to 1980—National Income grew 418%--Debt grew 210%
1980 to 1992National Income grew 102%--Debt grew 300%.
Democrats pay their way-Republicans party of spend and borrow-our kids pay
Tomorrow.


80. party for strong defense—carter increased defense spending by 50%--Clinton spent 273 Billion per year to Reagan’s 249 Billion per year.
Nixon-Ford cut Army troops by 41% and Reagan-Bush cut by 11%
81. Party of Integrity---Reagan had more(137) charged with crimes than cumulative total for all presidents of 20th century.
82. vacation with pay
83.trade union schools—forerunner to community colleges
84.worker retirement pensions
Clarence Swinney—Political Historian—Burlington nc—www.cwswinney@netzero.net

The PNAC controls Bush as a Puppet on a string. He truly believes he is in charge.

The PNAC wrote President Clinton in 1998 asking removal of Saddam. Also,t hey wrote Congress with same request.

Protect Israel

He who controls Middle East OIL controls the economies of many potential enemies.

They wanted to control the Middle East for the power of it's OIL.

WMD--Paul Wolfowitz stated publicly the use of WMD was the only reason to attack which would sell to the people.

clarence swinney
political historian
burlington nc
www.cwswinney@netzero.net

Okay, here it is, the smoking gun, the proof we have all been waiting for. A real reason to impeach the man ;

The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.


"SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL"

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

it's IMPEACHMENT TIME folks !!!

First the poodle ( Blair ) and then the Chimp (sorry about the insult to the real chimps) and his Pupeteers ( Dick, Carl, Donny, etc. )

Spread the word. It's our duty dammit !!!

We need to write the editors (both managing and executive) editors of both the NYT and the Wash Post. Tell them how disappointed and dismayed you are that they are not covering this MOST IMPORTANT STORY!

Demand that they do!

quoting a friend of a friend : "The Downing Street minutes are only one of a set of documents leaked to the BBC, (British Broadcasting Corporation) in late March. A careful reading of the following will reveal seven different memorandum, and includes references with direct quotations taken from the Downing Street war council minutes. This is further documentary evidence that the Iraq war was planned well in advance of 2002, that intelligence was fixed, that the UK knowingly entered into an illegal war with Iraq, and that Washington pressured, or forced, Goldsmith to reverse his opinion that the Iraq war is illegal. Please read carefully, and send this transcript to US news sources. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune, in particular. There are seven different documents quoted here."

BBC TRANSCRIPTS -- MORE EVIDENCE ILLEGAL WAR IRAQ![

...and more of the same. Bloggers barked for a better source. Here it is !

The track record of this adminstrations environmental record is abominable, and talk about endangering human beings lives, how can they not know what they have done, they know. And we know that they know. The corporate media knows. Than

The track record of this adminstrations environmental record is abominable, and talk about endangering human beings lives, how can they not know what they have done, they know. And we know that they know. The corporate media knows. Than