this November, vote for POWER for secularist Soros
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Richard
Poe's 2006 book _The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton
and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party_.
Soros likes to wield influence in the political realm. Soros had much
access in the Clinton White House, but that ended when Bush came to
town. If secularists can rally around the Democrats this November and
help them regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives,
then we can impeach Bush and remove him from office, who has so rudely
refused access to Soros. That will show others not to disrespect
Soros. Also, Soros will have much access/influence/power, which he
will be extremely happy to have. Soros has bought the Democrat party
and when it assumes control of Congress in the 2006 elections, he will
be in an even better position than he is now to be the conscience of
the world.
In Soros's view, current U.S. superiority ought to be punctured. It
would great if the U.S. were to be shamed by a defeat in Iraq. It will
be a repeat of the defeat the U.S. suffered in VietNam, which will be
great!
Bush thinks he is better than the jihadists in VietIraq, but that is
not the case. In actuality, no society is better than another society.
No moral judgments ought be permissible. It is immoral to condemn
jihadists as immoral. It is immoral to condemn Saddam's government as
immoral. It is immoral to condemn as immoral Bill Clinton's having
oral sex with a woman not Hillary while married to Hillary. It was
immoral for the Republican Congress to impeach and try to remove Bill
Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, especially since
removal of Bill would have cost Soros influence, and costing Soros
influence means costing Soros additions to his bulging bank accounts.
The U.S. must be defeated in VietIraq. VietIraq must descend into a
massive civil war. Bush must be removed from office. Victories for
the jihadists in VietIraq helps the Republicans lose Congress and
Democrats impeach Bush. Bush's impeachment and the removal from office
of Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, etc. helps the jihadists to be victorious.
Secularists, you know what to do:
Vote Democrat this November.
Vote for defeat in VietIraq.
Vote for early withdrawal of U.S. troops from VietIraq.
Vote for civil war in VietIraq.
Vote for jihadists taking over VietIraq and using it as a base of
operations for additional attacks on U.S. superiority.
Vote for puncturing U.S. superpower status.
Vote for making the billionaire Soros even richer and more powerful.
Vote for Soros to have access and influence and POWER in a
Democrat-controlled House and Senate.
Vote for impeaching Bush.
Vote for making Bush so busy fending off impeachment that he can't pay
attention to: fighting jihadists, and trying to win in VietIraq.
Vote for blocking conservative Supreme Court nominees the likes of
Alito and Roberts and Janice Rogers Brown.
Vote for secularist judges who will strike down anti-abortion and
pro-traditional-marriage laws.
Vote to allow the leftist Soros to fulfill his dream of being the
conscience of the world.
Vote Democrat this November!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
12 October 2006
George Soros's Two Left Hands
The partisan squeeze on judicial seminars.
by Edward Whelan
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTM1OTA4MWNiZGIzZGIxNGZkMmJiNjAxZTVlYTUyYTE=
In August 2004, according to this article in the
liberal _New Yorker_, "a clandestine summit meeting
took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado's
Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats,
were sworn to secrecy" and included five billionaires
who "shared a common goal: to use their fortunes
to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush
in the 2004 election." The wealthiest of these "hard-
core partisans" was George Soros, who had been a
"leading crusader for campaign-finance reform."
18 September 2006
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
by Sam Harris
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
robbbbinh...@hotmail.com
running their lives... the problem is the Bush Crime Family is in the
whitehouse.
Where are those WMDs anyway?
Aren't you at least scared of how a crime family is able to lower the
price of gas a dollar before the elections hoping to make the ignorant
people following them not realize it is going another dollar and a half
right after the elections.
These are greedy multi-trillionaire crime families... by not voting
them out you are bringing on the real end of America.
robbbbinh...@hotmail.com
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
*+-Where are those WMDs anyway?
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says By IRA STOLL January 26,
2006 The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air
force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before
the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the
passenger seats were removed. The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes
the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He
detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York
Sun. "There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to
Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada
said. "I am confident they were taken over." Mr. Sada's comments come
just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the
chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms By Bill Gertz WASHINGTON TIMES
October 28, 2004 Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam
Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the
weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington
Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense
for international technology security, said in an interview that he
believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost
certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from
the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole
series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred
all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the
Iraqis. The others were transportation units." Mr. Shaw, who was in
charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by
foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on
the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services
that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons
collaboration. Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were
systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and
rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons,
including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated,
Mr. Shaw said.
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and
nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said. Pentagon
spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment. The
disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from
the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story
was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry,
who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw
said. "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact
of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw
said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone
before we got there."
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was
defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi
military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders
around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon
said in a statement yesterday. A military unit in charge of searching
for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected
Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high
explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA. The
Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of
explosives from the facility after April 6. "The movement of 377 tons
of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and
equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions
occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd
Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said. The
statement also said that the material may have been removed from the
site by Saddam's regime.
According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the
explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March
and noted that the seals were not broken. It is not known whether the
inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country
before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003. A second defense
official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that
Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide
security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence
activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services
from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny
Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade
Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said. A
small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional
arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led
invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of
weaponry, he said. However, the most important and useful arms and
explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of
carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance
of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said. The Russian forces were tasked with
moving special arms out of the country. Mr. Shaw said foreign
intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's
Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons,
including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from
standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots. The
Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and
possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said. Mr. Shaw said he
believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives
from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria
that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency
operations in Iraq.
The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by
March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms
supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official
said. Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam
with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern
European nations, he said. "Whatever was not buried was put on
lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military
units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined
in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank
parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al
Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring
arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official
said. Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence
disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was
written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of
military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2,
2003. The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under
the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial
truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said. Regarding
the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric
tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of
RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or
pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing. The material is used in
nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what
happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out
of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what
happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton, Yellalot Spitzer & Angrew Cuomo: Nasty Together]
stewart_connor
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> *+-Where are those WMDs anyway?
>
> Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
In other words you will tell the lie that even Bush will not tell
anymore.
Bush now says that he had "bad intelligence" and there were no WMD's in
Iraq... of course that wont stop The Bush Lie Machine from trying to
convince retards that the war in Iraq was a good idea WITH ANY LIE THEY
CAN GET YOU TO BELIEVE!!!
AGGreen
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160912854.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
<robbbbinh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160913693.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone who believes this kind of crap deserves having Bush Crime Family
> running their lives... the problem is the Bush Crime Family is in the
> whitehouse.
>
> Where are those WMDs anyway?
***In Syria where Saddam Insane moved them to because he had months and
months of warning that the invasion was coming.
>
> Aren't you at least scared of how a crime family is able to lower the
> price of gas a dollar before the elections hoping to make the ignorant
> people following them not realize it is going another dollar and a half
> right after the elections.
***The U.S. government has absolutely no control over the price of gasoline.
It is all set by the free market...oil futures market, the oil companies,
and the producing nations.
>
> These are greedy multi-trillionaire crime families... by not voting
> them out you are bringing on the real end of America.
***Demonrats hano plan for anything except attack the other guys with lies.
>
AGGreen
"stewart_connor" <stewar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160920297.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>> *+-Where are those WMDs anyway?
>>
>> Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
>
> In other words you will tell the lie that even Bush will not tell
> anymore.
***The secular press is lying about this? Of course it is becauxe it doesn't
square with your prejudices.
>
> Bush now says that he had "bad intelligence" and there were no WMD's in
> Iraq... of course that wont stop The Bush Lie Machine from trying to
> convince retards that the war in Iraq was a good idea WITH ANY LIE THEY
> CAN GET YOU TO BELIEVE!!!
***Typical Democrap. All attack, no plans.
stewart_connor
This is why the Bush Polls are still falling no matter how many lies
come out.
torresD
AGGreen
>
> This is why the Bush Polls are still falling no matter how many lies
> come out.
***So what? He cannot be re-elected.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> Anyone who believes this kind of crap deserves having Bush Crime Family
> running their lives... the problem is the Bush Crime Family is in the
> whitehouse.
>
> Where are those WMDs anyway?
Beats me. When did Saddam cease having WMDs?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156507691.541484.301550%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> Aren't you at least scared of how a crime family is able to lower the
> price of gas a dollar before the elections hoping to make the ignorant
> people following them not realize it is going another dollar and a half
> right after the elections.
Gas prices typically go up during the summer. The summer is over.
> These are greedy multi-trillionaire crime families... by not voting
> them out you are bringing on the real end of America.
Who has more money: Soros, or the "Bush Crime Family"?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> This is why the Bush Polls are still falling no matter how many lies
> come out.
Those "Bush Polls" were rising, and that made necessary unleashing the
Foley IMs ahead of schedule.
12 October 2006
Saved by Foley
_The American Spectator_
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_prowler.asp
One of the stories going around Democrat Party
circles is that party operatives like Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for
primetime with the opposition research materials
they had gathered for the 2006 election cycle.
According to one political consultant with ties to the
DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the
Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten
days out of the election. It was supposed the coup
de grace, not the first shot."
So why the rush? According to another DNC
operative: bad polling numbers across the country.
"Bush's national security speeches were getting
traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping,
economic outlook surveys were positive. We were
seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri,
Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida
Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the
operative. ....
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
[snip]
Do you think engaging in homosexual activity is immoral?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> <robbbbinh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160913693.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Anyone who believes this kind of crap deserves having Bush Crime Family
> > running their lives... the problem is the Bush Crime Family is in the
> > whitehouse.
> >
> > Where are those WMDs anyway?
>
> ***In Syria where Saddam Insane moved them to because he had months and
> months of warning that the invasion was coming.
I like to ask this question:
When did Saddam cease having WMDs?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156507691.541484.301550%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
agreement between Saddam and Democrats: [Saddam]"the White House lied
when it said Iraq had chemical weapons"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135894757.515758.112650%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Al Qaeda and House and Senate Democrats Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy,
Maxine Waters, and Edward Markey agree:
[Al Qaeda's Zawahri]"Bush: you entered Iraq with lies"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134066097.207355.11620%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Iraq & David Limbaugh book _Bankrupt_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1159795370.312827.28640%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > Aren't you at least scared of how a crime family is able to lower the
> > price of gas a dollar before the elections hoping to make the ignorant
> > people following them not realize it is going another dollar and a half
> > right after the elections.
>
> ***The U.S. government has absolutely no control over the price of gasoline.
> It is all set by the free market...oil futures market, the oil companies,
> and the producing nations.
>
> > These are greedy multi-trillionaire crime families... by not voting
> > them out you are bringing on the real end of America.
>
> ***Demonrats hano plan for anything except attack the other guys with lies.
What plans have various Democrats floated regarding what they'd do
about fighting jihadists in Iraq? I've heard that cut-and-run isn't
the only proposal Democrats have advanced.
What plans have various Democrats floated regarding what they'd do
about fighting jihadists not in Iraq?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SongBookz
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160965720....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> stewart_connor wrote:
>> This is why the Bush Polls are still falling no matter how many lies
>> come out.
>
> Those "Bush Polls" were rising, and that made necessary unleashing the
> Foley IMs ahead of schedule.
>
> 12 October 2006
> Saved by Foley
> _The American Spectator_
> http://www.spectator.org/dsp_prowler.asp
> One of the stories going around Democrat Party
> circles is that party operatives like Citizens for
> Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
> and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for
> primetime with the opposition research materials
> they had gathered for the 2006 election cycle.
>
Yeah, right, a Conservative publication hearing rumors from "DNC
operatives," hey, would you be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge?
Frankly though, it would be better for the Democrats if the Republicans
retained a majority in both houses, that would virtually ensure a Democratic
victory in both Congress and the White House in 2008 as the Iraq War drags
on and Republicans try to privatize social security. The voters are angry
now, two more years of Congress rubber stamping Bush and the next President
might have to put the GOP on the list of terrorist organizations.
--
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.epigramz.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Bush hatred. Does anyone here have it? If so, could you please
describe your case of Bush hatred, and state under what circumstances
your Bush hatred will disappear?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> ***Soros and the Demoncraps are anti-American!
How so? Details, please.
Were any Democrats "anti-American" during the Vietnam War?
SongBookz
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160967092.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hatred is a strong word, I hate what he has done to this country, be he,
himself, is not worth the effort of hating, but on the other question - as a
start:
Impeachment and life imprisonment at Gitmo would be too good for him.
John Horn
>x-no-archive: yes
>On 15 Oct 2006 16:22:43 -0700, "stewart_connor"
><stewar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Š 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
>article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
>author
>>
>>This is why the Bush Polls are still falling no matter how many lies
>>come out.
>
>
>Just exactly how much $$$ is the DNC paying you, and how long have you
>been on the Committee's payroll?
>
>Just curious.
>
>j w
Oh, they don't have to pay him, he is just naturally a lemming. He's
a freeby.
- Jake
AGGreen
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160965127.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Who has more money: Soros, or the "Bush Crime Family"?
***Soros.
AGGreen
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160966804.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What plans have various Democrats floated regarding what they'd do
> about fighting jihadists in Iraq? I've heard that cut-and-run isn't
> the only proposal Democrats have advanced.
***You've got a scoop! No one else in the news industry has a clue what the
Dems would do besides cut and run. Call the New York Times now! Inquiring
minds want to know!
>
> What plans have various Democrats floated regarding what they'd do
> about fighting jihadists not in Iraq?
***Nothing.
AGGreen
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160965932....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> torresD wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Do you think engaging in homosexual activity is immoral?
***If one believes the New Testament is true, the answer is YES.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
lying":
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1160965720....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > stewart_connor wrote:
> >> This is why the Bush Polls are still falling no matter how many lies
> >> come out.
> >
> > Those "Bush Polls" were rising, and that made necessary unleashing the
> > Foley IMs ahead of schedule.
> >
> > 12 October 2006
> > Saved by Foley
> > _The American Spectator_
> > http://www.spectator.org/dsp_prowler.asp
> > One of the stories going around Democrat Party
> > circles is that party operatives like Citizens for
> > Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
> > and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for
> > primetime with the opposition research materials
> > they had gathered for the 2006 election cycle.
> >
> > DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the
> > Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten
> > days out of the election. It was supposed the coup
> > de grace, not the first shot."
> >
> > So why the rush? According to another DNC
> > operative: bad polling numbers across the country.
> > "Bush's national security speeches were getting
> > traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping,
> > economic outlook surveys were positive. We were
> > seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri,
> > Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida
> > Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the
> > operative. ....
>
> operatives," hey, would you be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge?
No.
Rahm Emanuel represents an Illinois district in the U.S. House of
Representatives, and is chairman of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee. Ref:
http://www.house.gov/emanuel/aboutrahm.shtml
When do you think Rahm Emanuel first learned of the existence of
sexually-explicit Foley Instant Messages?
What did Rahm Emanuel know about Foley IMs, and when did he know it?
What Is Rahm Emanuel Hiding About The Foley Scandal
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/004276.html
> Frankly though, it would be better for the Democrats if the Republicans
> retained a majority in both houses, that would virtually ensure a Democratic
> victory in both Congress and the White House in 2008 as the Iraq War drags
> on and Republicans try to privatize social security.
Good point.
AGGreen
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1160967287.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
***Not as many as there are today. The radical leftists, who are in control
of the Democratic Party, are slowing destroying America by inventing a new
country with new values, etc. The USA of the founding fathers no longer
exists.
AGGreen
Democrats don't know how to fight
By W. Thomas Smith, Jr
Monday, October 16, 2006
Party politics have always made me uncomfortable - I'm an issues man - and
when discussions of such have cropped up, I've usually gone to great lengths
to focus instead on ideologies that cross party lines because most Americans
seem to have more in common than not. But just a few weeks shy of midterm
elections and with so much at stake in the war on terror, I'm making an
exception.
The Democrat Party's "message is murky," writes commentator Howard Fineman
in a recent article for MSNBC Interactive. "In the Senate, they decry the
Mexican fence, then more than half of them vote for it. They label the Iraq
war as a mistake, then vote $70 billion more for it. They object to Bush's
torture [sic] bill, yet flinch at a chance to block it in the Senate."
Fineman's comments mirror those of the late Democrat Congressman Morris "Mo"
Udall, who said of his own team, when Democrats "form a firing squad, we
form a circle."
So why would anyone in their right mind believe that the Democrats could or
would do any better in the prosecution of the war on terror than the
Republicans? Not that the latter haven't made mistakes. In fact, there have
been some major miscalculations in the prosecution of the war, as there have
been in every American conflict since the Colonial era. There also have been
innumerable strategic successes and tactical victories on a variety of
fronts since 9/11.
But I am convinced the Democrats (including moderates, the blame-Bush crowd,
the cut-and-runners, and the extreme Left) would fail miserably in the
leadership of this current fight as they have time-and-again since President
Jimmy Carter's micromanaged debacle at Desert One in 1980. There are several
reasons why.
On October 10, The Washington Post published a group-written piece entitled,
"Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt United States," which leads with:
"Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an 'axis
of evil' comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has
reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it
conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its
uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war
3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion."
The article goes on to describe events that would remind any military expert
that most battle plans survive only to the point at which initial contact is
made with the enemy. But the article does so in a way that becomes obvious
to the expert that:
a) Those who wrote the piece probably do not understand the dynamics of
military operations.
b) The writers might be counting on their readers not having any grasp of
military operations.
c) Perhaps both
Beyond that - and to be fair - the article is technically a decent piece of
reporting, liberally infused with interesting quotes. The biggest problem I
have with it is that it wrongly lays all blame for North Korea, Iran, and
Iraq at the feet of the current administration, with no reference of any of
the extraordinary successes the U.S. has chalked-up in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Africa, the Far East, Europe, here at home, on the high seas, in cyberspace,
and anywhere else in the Global War on Terror.
So the Post's writers - and legions of Democrats who have long misunderstood
the dynamics of warfighting (particularly asymmetrical warfighting in the
21st century) - have concluded that because of President Bush's so-called
foreign-policy 'failures,' North Korea has achieved a nuclear-combat
capability, or they are very close to it (an unfortunate event that has been
moving toward its culmination for years during both Democrat and Republican
administrations, yet no mention of how North Korea's playing the Clinton
administration like a cheating spouse factored into this).
The piece also suggests that it is Bush's fault that Iran continues to defy
the West (though completely skirting the issue of how the Iranians smacked
the Carter administration around from 1979 to 1981; or how its nuclear
development program was ratcheted up during the 1990's), and that Iraq is
"tipping into" civil war, though the blame-Bush crowd has been
enthusiastically screaming that it has been tipping that way everyday for
eight months. And actually, shouldn't we be wondering why Iraq hasn't
completely 'tipped' in all that time? Not if you're a member of the
blame-Bush crowd, because that might suggest remarkable success on the
ground in an incredibly complex and dangerous environment.
Then there are the regular commentaries from the cut-and-runners on the
Hill:
"Our Iraq policy is a failure," says Philippe Reines, spokesman for Sen.
Hillary Clinton.
"[The election] shouldn't be about national security" and "to capture him
[Osama bin Laden] now I don't think makes us any safer," says Congresswoman
Nancy Pelosi.
Sen. Joe Biden said, "we can set a date for pulling out [of Iraq], which I
fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out, . a mistake." But then
he voted for a phased withdrawal from that country.
And, of course, there is Congressman John Murtha who has long called for an
"immediate withdrawal" from Iraq.
Again, this has less to do with my own political bent, but more to do with -
knowing what I know - how much more unnerved I would about the war than I
already am if the Democrats were leading the charge.
Other points to consider:
The Democrats have for decades consistently voted against an effective
missile defense shield for the continental United States. The Dems, more
than anyone else, were responsible for gutting our human-intelligence (spies
on the ground) capability over the years. And it was the Dems who permitted
the sale of sensitive defense technologies to the Chinese in the 1990's.
The Dems voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but now contend they supported
the invasion based on lies and bogus intelligence, and that they should
somehow not be faulted for that (What happened to Democrat Harry Truman's
"The buck stops here?").
The Dems also say they support the troops. Yet they accuse the troops -
prior to any charges, trials, or convictions - of "murdering" civilians "in
cold blood" (ala John Murtha). They say the troops are "terrorizing"
families in their homes (ala John Kerry). They say that the troops'
commander-in-chief is "encouraging and countenancing torture" (ala John
Conyers). And who might the CiC be "encouraging" to commit those tortures?
Who else, but the troops?The Dems see the war on terror as more of a law
enforcement operation than a military operation: They've said so, and often.
They've vocally opposed the Patriot Act.
They've been eager to ensure that the entire world knew there might have
been secret CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe (Like such a revelation was
really helpful in winning over allied nations who might have been assisting
us in such a capacity).
They've wanted to broadcast globally that they believe the NSA's domestic
eavesdropping on Al Qaeda without first getting a judge's permission is
somehow infringing on our Constitutional rights (forget the fact that Al
Qaeda is infringing on our right to exist).
They've wanted everyone to know about prisoner unhappiness at Guantanamo
Bay, and they've wanted photographs of "isolated" abuses of enemy prisoners
by a small band of poorly led Army Reservists at Abu Ghraib published on
page-one of every major newspaper in the world.
Mike Thornton - a retired Navy SEAL officer and recipient of the Medal of
Honor - may have said it best. During a recent conversation, I asked what
made him uncomfortable about the Left's involvement in the prosecution of
the war on terror. "They [the terrorists] get medals for cutting our heads
off," he said. "Whereas we go to jail for putting underwear on theirs."
The Dems call Iraq a "disaster," a "misadventure," and a "failure." Yet U.S.
forces have severely damaged Al Qaeda in Iraq, and gathered virtual
storehouses of intelligence that connect other terror dots throughout the
world. The Iraqi people have had three amazingly successful national
elections, thanks to the U.S. They have a working constitution, an
increasingly independent army and police force, a developing infrastructure
and a growing economy. And there is a fully functioning, freely elected
parliament in place, whose members are committed to ending sectarian
violence in that country. And most of Iraq's 18 provinces are relatively
secure.
This does not mean there are not major problems in that country. There are.
But that also doesn't mean we should heap blame to make political points.
Nor should we expend all of our energies whining about the things that have
gone wrong, when we could be focusing and capitalizing on the many things
that have gone right.
The Democrats, unfortunately, seem to draw strength from the negatives. For
instance, they seem to constantly manipulate their constituents with
casualty figures and casualty number milestones - to make political hay -
without lending any real perspective to those numbers.
At least 2,750 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the war began in March
2003. As of this writing, some 2,192 Americans have been killed as a result
of direct combat action in that country. And every death is a terrible loss.
I know because as a former Marine I have lost friends and fellow Marines in
both peace and in war.
But the losses - and there are always losses in any conflict - should be put
into perspective before labeling a military operation a disaster based on
losses.
Some of my friends on the Left have cavalierly referred to Iraq as a
"meatgrinder," with absolutely nothing relative on which to base such a
contentious term.
So here are some figures for real perspective:
More than 1,000 U.S. Marines were killed in 76 hours on the Pacific island
of Tarawa in 1943. Nineteen-thousand American soldiers lost their lives in
six-weeks of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge, 1944-45. And in less than
one month, nearly 7,000 Marines and sailors perished on Iwo Jima, 1945.
Does that mean the American public then was somehow immune or desensitized
to catastrophic losses? Hardly. "You killed my son on Tarawa," a
grief-stricken mother wrote Admiral Chester W. Nimitz after the battle.
President Roosevelt reportedly gasped upon learning of the casualty figures.
The Battle of the Bulge could have easily been a disaster, as the Germans
caught us with our pants down and nearly split our forces in half. And Iwo
Jima was one of the most desperate slugfests in military history. But
Americans were committed then to the task at hand. The battles were
horrible, unfathomable meatgrinders for those who prefer that word. But
failure was simply not an option then. Nor should it be today.
So the question for liberal Democrats that keeps coming home to me is: If
they believe they can't win elections, and they admit they are ineffective
(ala Mo Udall) at winning elections - and all they can do is whine about how
their opponents' supposed trickery is to blame for their losing elections -
what makes them think they can and will be effective at prosecuting much
less winning a global war against international terrorists?
If they expect to win the votes of any truly critical thinkers in 2006 or
2008, the Democrats need to stop crying about Florida in 2000 and Bush's
carrier-landing in 2003. They need to curb their giddy enthusiasm over Bill
Clinton's recent railing against Chris Wallace, and the shameless
shouting-down by brainwashed students of public lecturers with ideologies
different than their own.
Instead, Democrats need to unite with those of all political stripes, and
come up with substantive ideas of how we might successfully quash global
terrorism. But that probably won't happen, because, frankly, Democrats don't
know how to work and play well with others. And they certainly don't know
how to fight.
___________________
W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist,
and shipboard counterterrorism instructor and co-author of The Complete
Idiot's Guide to Pirates.
AGGreen
Democrats miscalculate on Foley mess
By Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, October 16, 2006
After news broke that former Republican Congressman Mark Foley had sent
salacious instant messages to a former congressional page, liberals hoped
that all their political dreams would come true. It seemed that a juicy sex
scandal was just the thing to help Americans forget that most Democrats want
to cut and run in Iraq, provide Geneva Convention protections to terrorists,
and prevent the President from authorizing warrant less wiretaps of calls
from Al Qaeda members into the United States.
But it seems that things haven't turned out quite like the Democrats
expected. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken between October 5 and 8,
three-quarters of respondents said that the Democrats wouldn't have handled
the Foley matter any better than Republicans had. What's more, a Pew
Research Center survey taken between September 21 and October 4 found that
the scandal hadn't changed the margin by which voters reported they
preferred Democrats to Republicans. In fact, the job approval of Republican
leaders actually rose one point after the scandal broke.
Despite all the left-wing attempts to portray the Foley matter as a symbol
of Republican decadence and corruption, it's revealed much more about the
character of the Democratic Party than about the GOP. Examples are
plentiful.
First, it's shown that some Democrats are truly clueless when it comes to
issues of personal morality and responsibility. Democratic congressional
candidate Debbie Farrell (running against incumbent Chris Shays in
Connecticut's 4th district) called on Speaker Hastert to resign in the wake
of the Foley scandal. Somehow, she saw no inconsistency in denouncing
Hastert as she campaigned with Senator Teddy Kennedy. It fell to her
opponent to point out that even the worst allegations against Hastert fell
well short of the behavior to which Kennedy had admitted at Chappaquiddick.
Even then, Farrell didn't understand. "My jaw dropped," she reported, upon
hearing Shay's comments.
Second, it's become clear that some Democrats are hypocrites of the first
order. Claire McCaskill, Missouri's Democratic candidate for the U.S.
Senate, says of Bill Clinton, "I think he's been a great leader, but I don't
want my daughter near him." If Bill Clinton is, indeed, a "great leader"
despite his own sexual history, it's not clear upon what principle
McCaskill, too, has called for Dennis Hastert's resignation based on Mark
Foley's wrongdoing.
It's likewise apparent that some Democrats are so desperate to gain power
that they're willing to lie to do it. Patty Wetterling, the Democratic
congressional challenger in Minnesota's 6th district, ran an ad charging
that "Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up the predatory
behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children." Asked
on CNN if any congressman had actually admitted knowingly and intentionally
covering up the scandal, Wetterling conceded, "Of course not. Of course
not."
Finally, in the wake of the Foley affair, Democrats have once again revealed
their profound ignorance of the Republican Party's conservative Christian
base. Just as John Kerry thought that alluding to Mary Cheney's
homosexuality would hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004, Democrats
apparently believed that values voters would punish all Republican
congressmen for Mark Foley's moral failures. In doing so, they have
overlooked the fact that people of faith understand that sin, like
redemption, is an intensely personal issue, rather than a collective one.
Had the sex scandal occurred in Democratic ranks, and Republicans moved as
aggressively to exploit it as their opponents have, there's little doubt
that the press would have cried foul. Ironically, it's likely the mainstream
media's own over-coverage of the Foley scandal has actually hurt the
Democrats - sanctioning over-the-top behavior that, ultimately, disgusts the
uncommitted voters they most want to attract. (It will be interesting to see
if they cover the emerging scandal about Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's
land interests with similar vigor.)
Worst of all, the Democrats seem once again to have "underestimated" the
American people. By relying on a tawdry sex scandal to help them regain the
majority - rather than setting out any policies on the major foreign policy
issues of the day - the Democrats have signaled that they believe normal
Americans are as unserious about the war on terror as they are.
Americans have the opportunity to teach the Democrats a lesson about what
really matters - to them and to the country - on Election Day. It's an
opportunity voters can't afford to squander.
_____________________
Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political commentator and guest radio
talk show host based near Los Angeles. Her blog can be found at
CarolLiebau.blogspot.com.
Newk Indofman
"AGGreen" <A...@GoBush.edu> wrote in message
news:eh1d4...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Worst of all, the Democrats seem once again to have "underestimated" the
> American people. By relying on a tawdry sex scandal to help them regain
> the majority - rather than setting out any policies on the major foreign
> policy issues of the day - the Democrats have signaled that they believe
> normal Americans are as unserious about the war on terror as they are.
Oh, please. As if the Republicans have a bag full of successes? We're in a
dead end war. The deficit is through the roof. Bush is a lame-brained lapdog
for Cheney & Co. Torture is the new standard of "freedom". Is this what
normal Americans want?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
lying":
[Bush]."
For having done what?
Would you like Bush to try to fend off impeachment by a
Democrat-Pelosi-run Congress?
Would you like Bush to pay scant attention to a nuclear North Korea and
a nuclear Iran while trying to fend off impeachment by a
Democrat-Pelosi-run Congress?
Do you have any of the views Chait expresses below?
18/29 September 2003
Mad About You
by Jonathan Chait
in _The New Republic_
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030929&s=chait092903
I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.
I think his policies rank him among the worst
presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted
to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less
substantive reasons, too.
==
I hate the way he walks-- shoulders flexed, elbows
splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy
feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--
blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-
populist twang. I even hate the things that
everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame
nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's
social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess
(does anybody give their boss a nickname without
his consent?). And, while most people who meet
Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to
know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I
have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction
to the sound of his voice or describe his existence
as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche.
Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal
experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to _The
New York Times_, called Bush hatred "as strong as
anything I've experienced in 25 years now of
polling." Columnist Robert Novak described it as a
"hatred... that I have never seen in 44 years of
campaign watching."
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1160967287.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > AGGreen wrote:
> >> ***Soros and the Demoncraps are anti-American!
> >
> > How so? Details, please.
> >
> > Were any Democrats "anti-American" during the Vietnam War?
>
> ***Not as many as there are today.
Names, please.
Mike Dundee
"Newk Indofman" <Wi...@FullVoice.org> wrote in message
news:B8XYg.10995$gU6....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
No, but you won't see many Republicans ever admit it.
I am a conservative, but not Republican. This country is in a heap of
trouble
if things don't turn around soon. If we get another Republican after Bush,
we are completely sunk.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> "Newk Indofman" <Wi...@FullVoice.org> wrote in message
> news:B8XYg.10995$gU6....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> > "AGGreen" <A...@GoBush.edu> wrote in message
> > news:eh1d4...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> Worst of all, the Democrats seem once again to have "underestimated" the
> >> American people. By relying on a tawdry sex scandal to help them regain
> >> the majority - rather than setting out any policies on the major foreign
> >> policy issues of the day - the Democrats have signaled that they believe
> >> normal Americans are as unserious about the war on terror as they are.
> >
> > Oh, please. As if the Republicans have a bag full of successes? We're in a
> > dead end war. The deficit is through the roof. Bush is a lame-brained
> > lapdog for Cheney & Co. Torture is the new standard of "freedom". Is this
> > what normal Americans want?
>
> No, but you won't see many Republicans ever admit it.
> I am a conservative,
Regarding which issues?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
What are some reasons for thinking "the New Testament is true"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Haeckel, Ernst. 1900. _The Riddle of the Universe: At the
Close of the Nineteenth Century_, translated by Joseph
McCabe. (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 391pp. On 328:
....on familiar principles of science, we put aside the
notion of supernatural conception through an
"overshadowing of the Most High" as a pure myth....
The statement of the apocryphal gospels, that the
Roman officer, Pandera, was the true father of
Christ, seems all the more credible when we make a
careful anthropological study of the personality of
Christ. He is generally regarded as purely Jewish.
Yet the characteristics which distinguish his high
and noble personality, and which give a distinct
impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical;
they are rather features of the higher Arian race,
and especially of its noblest branch, the Hellenes.
Gould: "Haeckel.... contributed to the rise of Nazism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
torresD
AGGreen
"Newk Indofman" <Wi...@FullVoice.org> wrote in message
news:B8XYg.10995$gU6....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
***All that you have described has been part of the American political
"scene" from the beginning. ALL politicians have their special interests and
skeletons in the clost. ALL OF THEM!
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Soros":
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1160966804.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > What plans have various Democrats floated regarding what they'd do
> > about fighting jihadists in Iraq? I've heard that cut-and-run isn't
> > the only proposal Democrats have advanced.
>
> ***You've got a scoop! No one else in the news industry has a clue what the
> Dems would do besides cut and run. Call the New York Times now! Inquiring
> minds want to know!
Murtha said "redeploy" (i.e. retreat) to Okinawa.
Conyers suggests cutting off funding of the Iraq war effort.
Some Democrats have called for a pullout before the end of 2006.
Now that I think about it, all of those proposals boil down to
cut-and-run.
> > What plans have various Democrats floated regarding what they'd do
> > about fighting jihadists not in Iraq?
>
> ***Nothing.
What plans have Democrats floated regarding what they'd do about a
nuclear North Korea having ballistic missiles? (besides "Let's impeach
Bush, let's try to satisfy our Bush-hatred.")
What plans have Democrats proposed regarding what they'd do about a
nuclear Iran eager to supply jihadists with nukes? (besides "Let's
impeach Bush, let's try to satisfy our Bush-hatred.")
What plans have Democrats made regarding what they'd do about winning
the war in Iraq against jihadists bent on
1) making Iraq a trophy victory for jihadism, and
2) making Iraq and Iran a launching base for nuclearized international
jihad?
(besides "Let's cut-and-run, let's impeach Bush, let's try to satisfy
our Bush-hatred.")
We have a HATRED of the FUNDIE Christian Bush that MUST be satisfied!!!
{cue a jihadist or North Korean mushroom cloud in an American city near
you}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Keillor: "the party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the
party of... faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles,
Christians of convenience"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1160751787.449878.186510%40k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Chait in _The New Republic_: "I hate President George W. Bush."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161052198.716267.39170%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
18 September 2006
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
by Sam Harris
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
23 August 2006
Why this man [Almadinejad] should give us all nightmares
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=401858
stewart_connor
•R L Measures
** Indeed, AG, and knowledge of what was in which politician's closet was
what kept J. Edgar "Mary" Hoover in power right up to the moment he took
his last breath.
AGGreen
NOTHING??? LOL!
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1161093156.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1710060...@192.168.1.102...
***I wonder how much his panties would fetch on eBay?? I understand Hoover
helped the Secret Service sneak in all of those bimbos for JFKennedy to play
with, including Marilyn Monroe.
AGGreen
"Worse Than AIDS"
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 17, 2006
When the liberals' belief system begins to confront reality, they simply
revise history and invent a new mythology to explain away the conflict.
Then they broadcast their message as broadly as possible to persuade others
that their central belief system had been correct all along. It is a
phenomenon that psychologists call cognitive dissonance, a theory of
rationalizing behavior first popularized in the 1950s when a UFO doomsday
cult, whose members prophesied that an alien invasion from outer space was
imminent, explained the absence of any attack to everyone they could as a
sign that the aliens had spared the planet Earth for their sake. Heaven
forbid that they abandon their original whacky belief altogether!
So it is with the liberals' core belief that, because of President Bush's
policies, the United States is primarily responsible for the problems the
world faces today with the rogue states of Iran and North Korea. To explain
away the ills of a complex world where the end of the Cold War released the
genie of nuclear proliferation to madmen with aggressive ambitions, the
liberals have forgotten about the rising threat during the eight years of
the Clinton Administration and have excoriated President Bush. They seem to
think that if Bush had only deferred in all cases to the will of the
"international community", as expressed exclusively through the United
Nations, and had treated the terrorist suspects more kindly, Iran and North
Korea would have fallen into line like docile lambs.
As the New York Times put it in a lead editorial on October 12th entitled
"the Age of Impunity," the world's bullies are having a field day because
"President Bush has squandered so much of America's moral authority".
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev went even further, commenting that
"today our American friends are suffering from an illness worse than AIDS.
And I would say this is the victor's complex.the Americans will have to
understand that in future they will have to cooperate and make decisions
jointly, instead of just always wanting to give orders".
It does not take much probing to expose the lacunae in this line of
'reasoning'. What exactly does the exercise of real "moral authority" mean
in a world where ruthless dictators manipulate the language of morality and
human rights to suit their nefarious purposes and have available to them the
means of mass destruction to push their way forward? Has the Bush
Administration really turned its back on the international community or has
it tried to lead with some purposeful vision beyond the goal of simply
getting a consensus on paper, no matter how meaningless the result?
The answer is that Bush is more willing to use military force in dangerous
situations than Clinton and his fellow liberals have been, because he is not
hung up by post-Vietnam guilt over the use of military force. Bush has
operated on the principle that, as the world's one remaining superpower, we
have unique responsibilities. However, his track record - including in
Iraq - is not one of reckless unilateralism or empire building as the
liberal cult still insists. President Bush has consistently tried to work
through the United Nations and with our allies, but circumstances must
dictate how that engagement unfolds in each case.
On the one hand, the liberals roundly condemned Bush for proceeding to hold
Saddam Hussein to account after the UN Security Council - stymied by France's
veto threat - refused to specifically authorize military action. The UN was
paralyzed by the narrow economic self-interest of Saddam Hussein's major
trading partners and recipients of his largesse from the oil-for-food
program. Bush went to the UN and virtually pleaded for the member states to
live up to the founding principles of the UN Charter and deal decisively
with this threat to international peace and security once and for all.
Calling Bush a power hungry unilateralist, the liberals conveniently ignored
the fact that, after diplomacy and economic sanctions had been tried with no
success for twelve long years, the choice boiled down to using military
force to demonstrate the price for flouting the will of the international
community or allowing Hussein to continue acting with impunity. The
liberals to this day cannot explain how leaving this genocidal maniac in
power, who starved his own people by looting the oil-for-food program and
who refused to forswear the development of weapons of mass destruction,
would have represented the moral high ground. Instead they converted their
20/20 hindsight observation that no weapons of mass destruction were
ultimately found - a conclusion made possible by the thorough inspection we
were able to accomplish only after Hussein was finally removed - into an
accusation that Bush was lying to us all along.
Then when the President pursued a multilateral diplomatic strategy in
dealing with the rogue states of Iran and North Korea, the liberals turned
around and declared that he should have essentially marginalized the role of
nations in Europe and Asia who had the largest stake in the outcome of the
negotiations, and entered into exclusive one-on-one discussions with Mahmoud
Ahmadinijad and Kim Jong-il. They claimed that North Korea would never
have developed and tested the nuclear bomb in the first place if Bush had
only followed Clinton's policy of direct engagement. Rather than show more
sense than the UFO cult and give up their untenable belief in trusting the
word of a madman dictator, the liberal cult of appeasers drank the cool aid
and suffered from a collective bout of amnesia.
They forgot how President Clinton was duped back in 1994 into giving the
North Koreans all sorts of incentives to give up their development of
plutonium technology, leaving them a gaping loophole to enrich uranium for
bomb making purposes and to develop missile delivery systems to boot. Bush
could have pretended not to notice when it came to light how the North
Koreans had blithely taken advantage of this loophole, but he chose not to.
Nevertheless, he did not rush to a military solution, which would have fit
the liberal stereotype of Bush as a shoot-from-the-hip cowboy.
Indeed, military action was certainly an option in 2002, when North Korea's
years of cheating was exposed, since we were not yet bogged down in Iraq.
But Bush chose instead to work with the other countries in the region,
particularly China, which had both the biggest stake and the most economic
leverage to bring to bear on the North Koreans. He also chose to work
through the United Nations to seek a collective diplomatic solution.
But somehow, in order to bend reality to their core belief system, the
liberals persisted with the myth that it was all the fault of the Bush
Administration that the North Korean psychopathic dictator Kim Jong-il
proceeded with a nuclear test. Instead of uniting with the President for
the sake of the country and focusing their ire on Kim Jong-il, the
Democratic leadership decided to play partisan politics with the nation's
security and tear into President Bush. Senator Kennedy went so far as to
pity the North Koreans for not getting the one-on-one attention from the
U.S. that they have long craved. Kennedy claimed that "The United States is
the heavy in this". Hillary Clinton added her voice to the liberal chorus
of criticisms, looking away from the consequences of her husband's fateful
decision to appease Kim Jong-il, much as she excused her husband's
indiscretions for many years and covered up for him.
Bolton Watch, a blog dedicated to non-stop attacks on our UN ambassador,
blamed John Bolton for the North Korean nuclear tests, in a variation of
the "devil made me do it" defense: "America under John Bolton's aggressive
foreign policy leadership as UN Ambassador changed the practice of
international law, and North Korea was all too happy to follow suit and
conduct the first nuclear test explosion since 1998."
Too bad for these bloggers that Bolton's patient diplomacy led to a rare
break-through at the UN Security Council - a unanimous resolution containing
punitive economic measures that are considered binding on the member states
and include sanctions on trade, travel and cargo inspections. Of course,
the liberals will bleat on that we still are wrong to refuse one-on-one
talks with the North Koreans, that if it weren't for Iraq we could have had
more credibility in dealing with North Korea and gotten a better deal,
etc. - indeed, everything they can think of while they deny the fallacy of
their central belief that one can achieve lasting peace by appeasing power
hungry dictators who have the will and means to develop and disseminate
weapons of mass destruction.
Defending the essential thrust of President Bush's policies does not mean
that this Administration is blameless. There is little doubt, for example,
that we went into Iraq with false expectations of an easy and decisive
victory. We were utterly unprepared for the insurgency that, by prolonging
our stay in Iraq, is reducing our capability to deal militarily with other
flashpoints around the world. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in particular,
must come to terms with the poor planning and execution of the war on his
watch and must listen to others with whom he may disagree or resign.
Also, the Bush Administration has been far too patient with the Iranian
regime, hesitant to lose even more political capital after its experience in
Iraq. If we do not promptly get a UN Security Council resolution against
Iran which is as tough as the one just passed against North Korea - after
learning from North Korea's example where Iran's uranium enrichment program
will inevitably lead - the United States should work separately with a
"coalition of the willing" to devise and enforce a set of meaningful
economic sanctions. Hesitation will be taken by our adversaries as a sign
of weakness and only compound the problem.
Likewise, if North Korea continues to thumb its nose at the Security Council
and China does not step up economic pressure that only it can exert, we
should not simply go back to the Security Council for a more toughly worded
resolution as the Bush Administration seems inclined to do. Unless they
are fully implemented, toughly worded resolutions are just placebos. We may
have to first consider getting both North Korea's and China's attention by
starting to equip Japan and South Korea with a full nuclear deterrent
capability. Collective action is not an exclusive monopoly of the United
Nations.
But this is a far cry from blaming President Bush for all that is wrong with
Iran and North Korea as the liberals are inclined to do. The megalomaniacs
in Iran and North Korea are the miscreants, not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
The crises with these countries have been building for a long time. Both
originated from liberal policies of appeasement - in Iran's case, starting
with President Carter's failure of resolve after the taking of our hostages
and, in North Korea's case, starting with President Clinton's failure to see
through the North Koreans' deception. Both former presidents exemplified
the liberal ambivalence over the essential goodness of America's cause and
over the necessity of combining muscular diplomacy with a military option
against dictators who threaten international peace and security. The
liberal critics of the President's policies have yet to learn this basic
lesson. President Bush has made his own share of mistakes to be sure, but
he knows that it will take more than nice words or America's deference to
global consensus to bring such evil bullies to account.
Newk Indofman
"AGGreen" <A...@GoBush.edu> wrote in message
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24939
>
> "Worse Than AIDS"
> By Joseph Klein
> FrontPageMagazine.com | October 17, 2006
[snipped masturbatory neo-con paranoid fantasy]
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault
on America’s Freedom.
Right. Real level-headed guy we got here.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> ***You've asked many questions. How many time do I have to type out
> NOTHING??? LOL!
Please fill in the blank:
The creation of matter-energy, time, and length width height in the hot
big bang was a creation out of absolutely ___________.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
How much money does Soros have?
What's the dirtiest, sleaziest thing Soros has done to acquire over $1
billion dollars in one fell swoop (if anything)?
How badly (if at all) was the 'little guy' hurt by Soros in the country
where Soros did that sleazy thing?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
15 August 2000
Soros: A Reluctant Appreciation
by Don Luskin
TheStreet.com
http://www.thestreet.com/comment/openbook/1041598.html
But Soros is different: In recent times of chaos in
the global markets, Soros' strong hands always
seem to hold a smoking gun. He has profited not by
quelling panic, but by promoting it.
Soros is best known as the man who broke the
Bank of England. His bear-raid on the British pound
in 1992 precipitated the collapse of the European
monetary system, and resulted in the transfer of
billions of pounds from Her Majesty's Treasury to
Soros' coffers. He's said to have done it again in the
Asian currency crises of 1996 and 1998.
16 July 2005
Who shorted British pound?
Currency fell 6% in 10 days before London terror attacks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444410/posts
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
•R L Measures
** Probably a bunch, but "Mary" 's Tutu is probably worth 10x that.
>I understand Hoover
> helped the Secret Service sneak in all of those bimbos for JFKennedy to play
> with, including Marilyn Monroe.
** Norma Jean Baker and Judith Exner were far from being bimbos.
AGGreen
"Newk Indofman" <Wi...@FullVoice.org> wrote in message
***The U.N. is a worthless organization.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Los Angeles Times, cited in
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010186.php
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean said Friday that his party would wield the Terri
Schiavo case against Republicans in the 2006 and
2008 elections, but for now needed to stay focused
battling President Bush on Social Security.
"We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on," Dean
said...
"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going
to be an issue in 2008," Dean told about 200 people
at a gay rights group's breakfast in West Hollywood,
"because we're going to have an ad with a picture of
Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide
whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to
your loved ones?' "
Dean, a practicing physician until he became
governor of Vermont in 1991, added: "The issue is:
Are we going to live in a theocracy where the
highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going
to be allowed to consult our own high powers when
we make very difficult decisions?"
Senator Joe Lieberman vocally opposed the killing of Terri
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504141202.31ec7f3b%40posting.google.com
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
agree with these Murtha and Dean views?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161111191.437514.279630%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
http://www.cofchinforcongress.com/intolerance.htm
Note also the ribbon celebrating homosexual activity.
At
http://www.wa-democrats.org/pages.php?submitted=1&id=42
appears these bumper stickers:
"Impeach Bush"
"Liberals treat dogs like people
Conservatives treat people like dogs"
Way to go, party of partial birth abortion and 'euthanasia'.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DNC's Defeatocrat Dean: "I hate the Republicans and everything they
stand for"; "It's pretty much a white Christian party."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161138356.554236.23700%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Keillor: "the party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the
party of... faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles,
Christians of convenience"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1160751787.449878.186510%40k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Defeatocrat Dean to pro-homosexuality group: I supported killing Terri
Schindler Schiavo
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161266154.756327.101690%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987
In the absence of debate at our leading universities,
each election is an attempt by people connected to
biblical ethics to hold off an onslaught by those who
have imbibed Singerism and try to win by ridicule
what they cannot achieve by honest reporting of
reality.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Singer can't: oppose pedophilia while being consistent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1151326524.293477.235520%40b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
pro-pedophilia political party & Peter Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150293456.499703.156520%40f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Is atheism [MMC]"associated with mass murderers and the like"?; views
of atheism-adherent Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141777876.224926.284110%40j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
executed Chinese prisoner organ material used in biotech
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156072938.650848.292250%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
cash for sub-persons' organs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143252326.064753.206420%40i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Put to use killed sub-persons' brains before their cremation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143212186.992727.233750%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Sub-persons/ sub-humans are expendable.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149820884.102362.221630%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1139372980.005787.15450%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
http://www.dnc.org/a/2006/07/its_up_to_the_l.php
quoting someone:
In a 4-2 decision, the [New York] Court of Appeals
found that the state's definition of marriage as a
union between a man and a woman, enacted more
than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and
that it was up to the State Legislature, not the
courts, to decide whether it should be changed.
That same Democrat Party website quotes DNC Defeatocrat Dean responding
to the court decision as saying [Dean]"today's decision by the New York
Court of Appeals... relies on outdated and bigoted notions about
families."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
fuller Dean:
As Democrats, we believe that every American has
a right to equal protection under the law and to live
in dignity. And we must respect the right of every
family to live in dignity with equal rights,
responsibilities and protections under the law.
Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals,
which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about
families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end
the effort to achieve this goal.
As that essential process moves forward, it is up to
the State legislature to act to protect the equal rights
of every New Yorker and for the debate on how to
ensure those rights to proceed without the rancor
and divisiveness that too often surrounds this issue.
Defeatocrat Dean to pro-homosexuality group: I supported killing Terri
Schindler Schiavo
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161266154.756327.101690%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
1939 R. T. Smallbones: "The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic
cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular,
homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany."
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1144986392.404825.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
spread of a quite nasty chlamydia strain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145045688.509125.221080%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
HIV/ AIDS statistics; chlamydia charts & tables
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150976556.997755.85000%40c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
http://www.committeeforjustice.org/contents/commercial/justice_ri.pdf
PDF file Weapons of mass obstruction
http://www.committeeforjustice.org/contents/commercial/weapons.pdf
Those are linked to from
http://www.committeeforjustice.org/contents/commercial/
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Kennedy on Defeatocrats' "determination... to resist any Neanderthal"
nominated by Bush
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161311984.304505.69680%40m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
Darwin: [Greg]"the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies
like rabbits"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Reid called Bush judicial nominees "bad people"; Dems oppose Janice
Rogers Brown
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1160755218.693577.250990%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Defeatocrat Dean to pro-homosexuality group: I supported killing Terri
Schindler Schiavo
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161266154.756327.101690%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Hitler; Darwin: "the evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected
is incalculable"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134662154.179171.232450%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
torresD
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
LGBT Community
DNC Announces New Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council Director
http://www.dnc.org/a/2006/05/dnc_announces_n_3.php
The Democratic National Committee today
announced that Brian Bond will join the DNC as the
new Executive Director of the Gay & Lesbian
Leadership Council (GLLC). Bond brings to the
DNC a proven record of success in reaching out to
and organizing America's lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) community and a commitment
to confronting the critical issues facing LGBT
families.
"We are pleased that Brian has agreed to join our
team here at the DNC," said DNC Chairman
Howard Dean. "Brian's proven and effective
leadership will be crucial to our effort to confront the
issues facing the Party and the LGBT community.
The Democratic Party has a long history of standing
against discrimination and standing up for equal
rights for every American. Unfortunately, the
Republicans are again taking a page from the Karl
Rove playbook and using issues to scapegoat the
LGBT community with the divisive Federal Marriage
Amendment and hate-filled ballot initiatives aimed at
dividing and distracting America from critical issues
facing our country. Brian will help lead our fight to
end the Republican politics of fear and division."
Based on input from donors and activists, the DNC
under Chairman Dean has embraced an expanded
vision of the GLLC as a program that integrates
both political and financial operations. In his role as
Executive Director of the GLLC, Bond will
coordinate political strategy related to LGBT issues,
strengthen efforts to organize in the community, and
lead the DNC's efforts to consult with strong
Democratic-allied groups like the National Stonewall
Democrats and reach out to groups like the Human
Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force.
"I look forward to returning to the Democratic
National Committee at this time of such great
challenge and opportunity for our community," said
Bond. "Chairman Dean continues to listen to the
needs of the LGBT community and stands as a
leader in our fight for equality. I am excited to help
the Chairman and the Party move forward as we
head into the elections this fall and beyond so we
can take back Congress and win the White House."
A political veteran with more than 20 years of
experience in national politics as well as state and
local campaigns, Bond served as Executive Director
of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund from 1997 to
2003. Prior to that, Bond served as DNC director of
LGBT outreach, where he directed the DNC's first
ever financial contributions to targeted LGBT clubs,
organized the most extensive DNC effort for
visibility at gay pride events around the country, and
succeeded in significantly increasing the number of
LGBT delegates to the 1996 Democratic National
Convention.
"Brian is a proven leader in the fight to ensure equal
rights for America's LGBT community," said Dean.
"His leadership and commitment will greatly
enhance our Party's efforts to stand with our friends
and neighbors in the LGBT community as we fight
to oppose discrimination in all its forms and promote
equality under the law."
failure to let 2 men have a state-recognized marriage relies on
"outdated and bigoted notions about families"--DNC Defeatocrat Dean
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161363337.124880.237300%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
RetroProphet
>like rabbits"
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
By what leap of irrationality do you conclude that
because Darwin here did not flinch at offering
bigoted generalizations about the Irish, his scientific
ideas ought to be discredited? I don't think your
point was that he was a scientifically credible
bigot, but correct me if I'm mischaracterizing
your point in posting this.
And, before you bristle at being characterized
as being irrational, you might try applying the same
"reasoning" to Catholics, who did not flinch at
considering slavery to be a sinless activity,
considered coercion by force of religious enemies
and "heathens" to be a noble activity, and for an
awfully long time thought it a fact that no humans
lived on the far side of the world.
If I posited that for these reasons, the whole of
Catholic thinking is discredited, what would you call me?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
priests engaging in homosexual activity with teenagers
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152711976.682571.274820%4075g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Steve Hayes
>Ref: see the Olasky URL.
>
>27 November 2004
>Blue-state philosopher
>Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
>avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
What is a defeatocrat?
Who is Pete Singer?
What jurisdiction do they elong to?
Do they accept the filioque?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
david ford:
> >Darwin: [Greg]"the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies
> >like rabbits"
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> By what leap of irrationality do you conclude that
> because Darwin here did not flinch at offering
> bigoted generalizations about the Irish, his scientific
> ideas ought to be discredited?
"his scientific ideas"
Which Darwin ideas do you refer to?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
> I don't think your
> point was that he was a scientifically credible
> bigot, but correct me if I'm mischaracterizing
> your point in posting this.
What is "a scientifically credible bigot"?
What's an example of "a scientifically credible bigot"?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Neo-Nazis, I suggest you study the writings of that scientist, and
prophet of Darwin in England, T.H. Huxley.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1146056580.480126.106210%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
Study of the god Darwin's writings, including his bible, might also
prove enlightening.
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1140576033.123225.228290%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin quotes appropriate for neo-Nazi forums?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1159496920.958389.61540%40k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> And, before you bristle at being characterized
> as being irrational, you might try applying the same
> "reasoning" to Catholics, who did not flinch at
> considering slavery to be a sinless activity,
> considered coercion by force of religious enemies
> and "heathens" to be a noble activity,
Hitler; Darwin: "the evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected
is incalculable"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134662154.179171.232450%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> and for an
> awfully long time thought it a fact that no humans
> lived on the far side of the world.
>
> If I posited that for these reasons, the whole of
> Catholic thinking is discredited, what would you call me?
RetroProphet.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> On 20 Oct 2006 08:50:32 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>
> >Ref: see the Olasky URL.
> >
> >27 November 2004
> >Blue-state philosopher
> >Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
> >avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
>
> What is a defeatocrat?
A Democrat that promotes policies that would result in the defeat of
the U.S. in Iraq. Examples of Defeatocrats are Democrat National
Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democrat Representative John Murtha.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
agree with these Murtha and Dean views?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1161111191.437514.279630%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Who is Pete Singer?
A very influential atheist philosopher.
> What jurisdiction do they elong to?
Singer recently came to the U.S. from Australia.
Dean was governor of the U.S. state of Vermont.
Murtha represents in the U.S. House of Representatives a congressional
district located in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.
Speaking of Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum is one of the 2
Senators representing the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. Santorum is
currently in a very tough reelection fight, and I urge pro-lifers in
Pennsylvania to assist him in these final weeks of the campaign season.
Boxer to Santorum: "I Am Not Answering These Questions!"
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/notansweringboxersantorum.html
> Do they accept the filioque?
What is "the filioque"?
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
> http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Stephen F. Hayes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134078990.348534.274260%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Does the UN allow rapists to remain on UN peacekeeping forces?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
21 April 2005
The UN Shows Its Love
by Ryan Veiga | The UN is even more corrupt than you thought.
http://tuftsprimarysource.org/?p=84
The evidence is incontrovertible and the facts are
clear. In the Congo, the site of some of the most
grievous sex crimes, investigators estimate that
hundreds of babies are the children of young
teenage mothers and UN peacekeeping rapists. In
some cases, UN officials used food to lure young,
prepubescent girls to have sex with them. More
often, these officials simply forced the girls to have
sex against their will, sometimes even at gunpoint.
Nine months later, when their children are born--
children who bare [bear] the obvious mark of foreign
parentage-- these same girls often report not even
being able to get aid from the UN aid camps to bring
up their UN babies.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2006 08:50:32 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>
>> >Ref: see the Olasky URL.
>> >
>> >27 November 2004
>> >Blue-state philosopher
>> >Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
>> >avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
>>
>> What is a defeatocrat?
>
>A Democrat that promotes policies that would result in the defeat of
>the U.S. in Iraq. Examples of Defeatocrats are Democrat National
>Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democrat Representative John Murtha.
Since such defeat is inevitable, it seems an unneccessary and silly nickname.
>> Who is Pete Singer?
>
>A very influential atheist philosopher.
>
>> What jurisdiction do they elong to?
>
>Singer recently came to the U.S. from Australia.
>Dean was governor of the U.S. state of Vermont.
>Murtha represents in the U.S. House of Representatives a congressional
>district located in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.
I meant what Orthodox bishop does he come under, since you posted in
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox.
>> Do they accept the filioque?
>
>What is "the filioque"?
The word used to promote the false doctrine of the double procession of the
Holy Spirit.
But if he's atheist, then it doesn't matter.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> On 22 Oct 2006 18:08:06 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> On 20 Oct 2006 08:50:32 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ref: see the Olasky URL.
> >> >
> >> >27 November 2004
> >> >Blue-state philosopher
> >> >Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
> >> >avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
> >>
> >> What is a defeatocrat?
> >
> >A Democrat that promotes policies that would result in the defeat of
> >the U.S. in Iraq. Examples of Defeatocrats are Democrat National
> >Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democrat Representative John Murtha.
>
> Since such defeat is inevitable, it seems an unneccessary and silly nickname.
For which if any of these conflicts do you think "defeat is
inevitable"?:
the war of 'insurgents' in Iraq against the Iraqi goverment and U.S.
Hezbollah's war against Israel
Israel's war against Hezbollah
the U.S. 'war on drugs'
the U.S.'s 'war on terrorism'
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Moore: 'insurgents' in Iraq *aren't* terrorists, and "will win"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1160753392.516824.29720%40e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> >> Who is Pete Singer?
> >
> >A very influential atheist philosopher.
> >
> >> What jurisdiction do they elong to?
> >
> >Singer recently came to the U.S. from Australia.
> >Dean was governor of the U.S. state of Vermont.
> >Murtha represents in the U.S. House of Representatives a congressional
> >district located in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.
>
> I meant what Orthodox bishop does he come under, since you posted in
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox.
"what Orthodox bishop does he come under"
Who is "he"?
> >> Do they accept the filioque?
> >
> >What is "the filioque"?
>
> The word used to promote the false doctrine of the double procession of the
> Holy Spirit.
What is "the false doctrine of the double procession of the Holy
Spirit"?
RetroProphet
>For which if any of these conflicts do you think "defeat is
>inevitable"?:
>the war of 'insurgents' in Iraq against the Iraqi goverment and U.S.
>Hezbollah's war against Israel
>Israel's war against Hezbollah
>the U.S. 'war on drugs'
The "war on drugs" is not a war, it is a business plan.
Since it is intended that it never end, the question of
whether "defeat is inevitable" does not apply.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On 22 Oct 2006 18:08:06 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >> On 20 Oct 2006 08:50:32 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Ref: see the Olasky URL.
>> >> >
>> >> >27 November 2004
>> >> >Blue-state philosopher
>> >> >Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
>> >> >avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
>> >>
>> >> What is a defeatocrat?
>> >
>> >A Democrat that promotes policies that would result in the defeat of
>> >the U.S. in Iraq. Examples of Defeatocrats are Democrat National
>> >Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democrat Representative John Murtha.
>>
>> Since such defeat is inevitable, it seems an unneccessary and silly nickname.
>
>For which if any of these conflicts do you think "defeat is
>inevitable"?:
The one you mentioned above: the defeat of the US in Iraq.
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@hotmail.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Which viewpoint do you think will win this contest?:
atheism vs. intelligent design
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Do you consider "the defeat of the US in" Afghanistan "inevitable"?
Do you approve of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to topple the al
Qaeda-harboring Taliban?
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 16:34:29 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >> On 22 Oct 2006 18:08:06 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> >> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Oct 2006 08:50:32 -0700, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Ref: see the Olasky URL.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >27 November 2004
>> >> >> >Blue-state philosopher
>> >> >> >Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
>> >> >> >avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What is a defeatocrat?
>> >> >
>> >> >A Democrat that promotes policies that would result in the defeat of
>> >> >the U.S. in Iraq. Examples of Defeatocrats are Democrat National
>> >> >Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democrat Representative John Murtha.
>> >>
>> >> Since such defeat is inevitable, it seems an unneccessary and silly nickname.
>> >
>> >For which if any of these conflicts do you think "defeat is
>> >inevitable"?:
>>
>> The one you mentioned above: the defeat of the US in Iraq.
>
>Do you consider "the defeat of the US in" Afghanistan "inevitable"?
No, but it's very likely.
The Russians got a bloody nose there within living memory.
>Do you approve of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to topple the al
>Qaeda-harboring Taliban?
Not really.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Agreed. However, today's U.S. military technology is vastly superior
to what the Russians had in the 1980s.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mujahideen: The Resistance in Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0101011312370.615920-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
> >Do you approve of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to topple the al
> >Qaeda-harboring Taliban?
>
> Not really.
Do you think the U.S. shouldn't have tried to topple the al
Qaeda-harboring Taliban?
Steve Hayes
Superior military technology is not enough to win guerrilla wars.
That's another lesson from history that successive US governments seem
incapable of learning.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1162123588.220906.201830%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Saddam and the Palestinian Liberation Front
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1162127038.762793.234460%40m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com