Saturday, February 14, 2004
Well put:The Left Was Right, by Jack Rabbit - Democratic Underground: "The left said talk of the Iraqi people welcoming the invaders with open arms and roses was nonsense. The Iraqi people know the difference between liberation and colonial occupation. They are resisting occupation. Also decried as nonsense was talk of going into Iraq to democratize the Middle East. Bush loses an election and seizes power, tramples on the Bill of Rights and human rights treaties, operates what should be an open government in secret and sends troops into combat after giving false justifications for the act. The idea that such a man would be interested in bringing democracy and the rule of law to Iraq is ludicrous. The colonial regime represses freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the right to petition for redress of grievances. The Iraqi Governing Council is a group of quislings handpicked by the US colonial viceroy, not a body representative of or responsible to the Iraqi people. The invasion has not brought democracy to Iraq. The left was right. "
Here's how this will play out: Democrats will start pounding on the Bush administration about trying to hide the true cost of fighting Haliburton's war. Then the GOP, starting with RNC chair Ed Gillespie going on Fox News Sunday will start returning fire with statements like, "How dare the democratic party question the Bush administration's support for our military?" Tony Snow will fail to offer anything even loosely resembling a legitimate follow-up question.
The White House will then quietly respond to this issue with the next two weeks stating that they'll look into it. This will allow them to say they're doing something about it without actually doing anything about it.
U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money: "
U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money
United Press International
February 11, 2004
WASHINGTON - The military will have no money to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months beginning Oct. 1 because the White House is declining to ask Congress for funding until December or January, well after the presidential election. "
The White House will then quietly respond to this issue with the next two weeks stating that they'll look into it. This will allow them to say they're doing something about it without actually doing anything about it.
U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money: "
U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money
United Press International
February 11, 2004
WASHINGTON - The military will have no money to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months beginning Oct. 1 because the White House is declining to ask Congress for funding until December or January, well after the presidential election. "
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
It's good to see Bill O'Reilly finally seeing the light. It's still disgraceful that he was so blind and abusive on his "Fair and Balanced" show over the past 11 months of Halliburton's war.Yahoo! News - Bush's Political Base Seems Restive, Anxious: "Popular conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly, usually an outspoken Bush loyalist, said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "
That's right, Isaac Day. It turns out that with $100 Billion and 100,000+ troops, we can track down a man without weapons of mass destruction.
Has anyone seen Osama bin Laden lately? That guy actually did attack us and we can't find him. Is there less oil on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border than in Iraq or something?
What's the latest on capturing the person who killed people on the East Coast by sending Anthrax through the mail? Now that person definitely has WMD's, and they're already in this country. Here's a theory. If Bush is somehow reelected, I think he'll send our troops and Haliburton after the Anthrax killer based on the latest intelligence provided to the White House. He's clearly hiding in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and those oil fields need to be liberated.
Yahoo! News - Saddam's Capture Justifies War for Some: "For Staff Sgt. Isaac Day and many other American soldiers serving here, ridding Iraq (news - web sites) of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) made the war worthwhile � regardless of whether anyone ever finds weapons of mass destruction. "
Has anyone seen Osama bin Laden lately? That guy actually did attack us and we can't find him. Is there less oil on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border than in Iraq or something?
What's the latest on capturing the person who killed people on the East Coast by sending Anthrax through the mail? Now that person definitely has WMD's, and they're already in this country. Here's a theory. If Bush is somehow reelected, I think he'll send our troops and Haliburton after the Anthrax killer based on the latest intelligence provided to the White House. He's clearly hiding in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and those oil fields need to be liberated.
Yahoo! News - Saddam's Capture Justifies War for Some: "For Staff Sgt. Isaac Day and many other American soldiers serving here, ridding Iraq (news - web sites) of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) made the war worthwhile � regardless of whether anyone ever finds weapons of mass destruction. "
Are conservatives beginning to realize they'll be treated better by their Creator if they choose to promote marriage for all rather than gay bashing during their short time on this planet?
TAP: Web Feature: Pass Protection. by Thomas Lang. October 22, 2003.: "If two-parent families are really the best way to raise children, shouldn't we want all parents -- including gay and lesbian parents -- to get married? And if so, isn't marriage protection, as conservatives define it, incompatible with marriage promotion, at least for the not-insignificant number of parents, biological and adoptive, who are homosexuals? "
TAP: Web Feature: Pass Protection. by Thomas Lang. October 22, 2003.: "If two-parent families are really the best way to raise children, shouldn't we want all parents -- including gay and lesbian parents -- to get married? And if so, isn't marriage protection, as conservatives define it, incompatible with marriage promotion, at least for the not-insignificant number of parents, biological and adoptive, who are homosexuals? "
