…think that fighting back against terrorism is futile because it creates a cycle of violence. So you see killing terrorists only produces more terrorists? Just as killing Nazis in WW2 only produced more Nazis & bombing Hiroshima led to huge upsurges in Japanese recruiting.

…claim to favor deterrence to intimidate our enemies into leaving us alone…until we’re attacked, at which point you counsel not responding.

…simultaneously believe Iraq was a “war for oil” and blame George Bush personally for higher gas prices.

…claim that we’re acting “unilaterally” in Iraq despite the fact that there are currently more than 30 nations with men on the ground supporting us there.

…blame “neocons” for somehow manipulating the country into war in Iraq for shadowy and sinister purposes despite the fact you’re not even sure exactly what a neocon is.

…think it’s vitally important that we not only put our self-interest aside, but make great sacrifices, to gain the approval of nations like France, Russia, China, & Germany, that history has shown are going to nakedly pursue their own self-interest no matter what we do.

…believe that before 9/11, Bush should have started jailing suspicious characters, closed America’s airports, and warned all Americans of impending doom based on the flimsiest of non-specific information. But now, after we’ve been hit by terrorists and have much better intelligence, you laugh at the color coded alert system and consider it to be nothing more than a political ploy designed to perk up Bush’s poll ratings.

…say that only the United Nations can legitimize a military venture…well unless a Democrat is in office, in which case it’s fine to bypass the UN whenever it’s convenient like Bill Clinton did when we bombed Kosovo.

…are willing to do whatever it takes to defend the American public from terrorists…as long as the French and Germans say its OK.

…believe 9/11 was just a handy dandy excuse to get rid of the Taliban so we could run a vulnerable, fragile, oil pipeline that Unocal gave up on back in 1998 through a country teeming with warlords, jihadis, & Taliban dead-enders.

…incessantly trash patriotic Christians as dangerous extremists, but cry “bigotry” whenever someone criticizes radical Islamists who support terrorism and hate America.

…support spending tax dollars hand over fist on everything from free needle exchanges for addicts to water stations in the middle of the desert for illegal aliens, but become a fiscal conservative when anyone starts talking about funding the military, our intelligence services, or missile defense.

…only cared about the fate the Iraqi people when Bush was talking about going to war. When Saddam was torturing them you had nothing to say and now that they’re relying on our help to build a democracy, you believe we should pull out and leave to their fate. But of course, if we pulled out and things fell apart, you’d then again care about the Iraqi people…at least until the November elections.

…look at the Middle-East and think the primary problem there is Israel, a successful, pro-American democracy, not all of the corrupt, terrorist supporting dictators and fascists who hate America, oppress their own people, and want to drive the Israelis into the sea.

…spent the eighties claiming Reagan’s attempt to bring down the Soviet Union was futile and that it could never work, only to spend every day since the Berlin Wall fell saying that you knew all along that the Soviet Union was about to collapse and Reagan had nothing to do with it.

"i love john hawkins

Everytime John Hawkins at Right Wing News links to me my hits skyrocket. I wonder if I ever actually retain any of the readers he sends my way. Anyway, it's such a rush seeing myself linked on RWN because John Hawkins is definitely one of my favorite bloggers if not the favorite. It's like being noticed by a celebrity!"

A dictator who defied this very organization
A dictator who falsified every agreement he ever made
A dictator who led his nation in wars of agression killing millions
A dictator who developed chemical and biological weapons
A dictator who used chemical and biological weapons
A dictator who sought nuclear weapons
A dictator who put 500,000 in mass graves

Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign is calling on President Bush to apologize for using images of Adolf Hitler in an Internet ad on the Bush-Cheney 2004 website.

The images, however, originally came from a TV ad posted online by a Democrat party ally, MoveOn.org, which likened President Bush to the Nazi dictator.

CAVUTO: All right. Sir, a couple of little issues I want settled, or maybe to get the real skinny on. One was this blowout you had the other day with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. What happened?

CHENEY: Well, I guess you could say we had a little floor debate in the United States Senate.

CAVUTO: I heard it was more than a debate.

CHENEY: Well, I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it.

CAVUTO: All right. Now, did you use the "F" word?

CHENEY: That's not the kind of language I usually use.

CAVUTO: All right, because the reports were that you did.

CHENEY: Yes, that's not the kind of language I ordinarily use. But...

CAVUTO: What did you tell him?

CHENEY: I expressed my dissatisfaction for Senator Leahy.

CAVUTO: Over his comments about you and Halliburton?

CHENEY: No. It was partly that. It was partly — also, it had to do with — he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come after you as though he's your best friend. And I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my views of the — of his conduct and walked away.

CAVUTO: Did you curse at him?

CHENEY: Probably.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Do you have any regrets?

CHENEY: No. I said it, and I felt that...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: So let me understand, he comes up, he sees you, Mr. Vice — he's all nice, shakes your hand. And then what do you do, let into him?

CHENEY: Explain my unhappiness with the way he conducted himself. Ppart of the problem here is, that instead of having a substantive debate over important policy issues, he had challenged my integrity. And I didn't like that. But, most of all, I didn't like the fact that after he had done so then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream.

And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards.

CAVUTO: All right. Now, they say you broke decorum for normally a Senate or congressional session. Now, technically, I guess, it wasn't in session.

CHENEY: No, we weren't in session. What we were doing was waiting to take our pictures, our official Senate photo. And I go up and sit in the chair, as the president of the Senate (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CAVUTO: What was reaction from the crowd?

CHENEY: Well, I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue.

CAVUTO: Pretty feisty guy, aren't you?

CHENEY: Well, I'm usually fairly calm (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CAVUTO: Your wife's just a few feet away.

CHENEY: And ordinarily I don't express myself in strong terms. But I thought it was appropriate here.

Then there are Moore’s Congressional "experts." F911 features extensive interviews with two of the biggest wackos ever elected to Congress, Reps. Jim McDermott and John Conyers, both far-left Democrats. They spout off against everything from the USA Patriot Act to the War on Iraq.

But he fails to tell us that Jim McDermott was on the take from Saddam Hussein. McDermott was one of three Congressmen who went on Saddam’s propaganda tour of Iraq in Fall 2002. The trip was funded by Life for Relief and Development (LRD), a "charity" which laundered money to terrorist group Hamas’ Jordanian operation. LRD is funded in part by Shakir Al-Khafaji, a man who did about $70 million in business with Saddam through his Falcon Trading Group company (based in South Africa). LRD’s Iraqi offices were raided by US troops last week, and the Detroit-area "charity" is suspected of funding uprisings, such as the one in Fallujah. Its officials bragged of doing so at a recent private US fundraiser.

Mr. Alkhafaji, one of two Americans named in Iraqi newspapers as a participant in Saddam’s "Oil for Food" scam, gave Congressman McDermott $5,000 in October 2002 for McDermott’s legal defense fund in a lawsuit against him. He’s not biased about Iraq, right?!

The Army contracted with Israel Military Industries Ltd. in December for $70 million in small-caliber ammunition.

The Israeli firm was one of only two worldwide that could meet U.S. technical specifications and delivery needs, said Brig. Gen. Paul Izzo, the Army's program executive officer for ammunition. The other was East Alton, Illinois-based Winchester Ammunition, which also received a $70 million contract.

"He says he was proud of the way that he defended the presidency, at my expense," she said.

"In the process he destroyed me, and that was the way he was going to have to do that, to get through impeachment," Lewinsky added. "I was a young girl and to hear him saying some of the things he was saying today -- it's a shame."

Lewinsky insists during the ITV interview that she had a relationship with Clinton even though he never uses the word in the book, instead opting for "inappropriate encounter" on page 773 of the 957-page autobiography.

"This is something that I never wanted to talk about publicly and I know he wished had never become public. But this was a mutual relationship, from the way it started all the way through," Lewinsky said.

"None of the thousands of U.S. military personnel based in Afghanistan to hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban rebels turned up for Friday's event."

So the Times has had in its possession a document that details contacts and collaboration which it determined that the government found authentic, and still editorialized about the purported dishonesty of Bush and Cheney?

Much to the dismay of his father, after the [6 year old] boy went to buy popcorn he came back with a button on his shirt that said “Vagina Friendly.” The button was sold to the unsuspecting child by members of the “c**t club” at Wesleyan.
...
C**t club members Cara Herbitter, Julia Marcus and Gina Zori issued a joint statement (because feminists are always independent, strong, and don’t all think alike) correcting the misinformed father.

“One of the main goals of the c**t club is to foster healthy attitudes towards women, c**ts (in the appropriate sense) and sexuality. We want women to be proud of their c**ts, demand respect for them, and know how to pleasure themselves and be pleasured by lovers. We strive for a c**t-friendly world that is free from shame and violence towards c**ts…”

“’Vagina Friendly’ is NOT sexually explicit. Vagina is a medical term referring to a part of the female anatomy. It is, because of the world we live in (as opposed to the world we are trying to create), a frequently stigmatized word that carries various connotations depending on one’s background and experience. Our job is to try to spread OUR meaning: This is a body part that should be loved and respected.”

“While we may envision a world in which all little boys and girls wear ‘Vagina Friendly’ pins and grow up to be the ‘Vagina Friendly’ community of which we dream, it is not our choice to decide how others’ children should be raised. However, it is also not our responsibility to teach a lesson of shame to a young boy when he asks for a pin.”

Feminists in Colorado think that the word “c**t” is always profane, while feminists in Connecticut think that it is always appropriate. They also think that “vagina” is appropriate. And, of course, feminist English professors at my university put the words “vagina,” “p***y,” and “f**k” on posters that they hang on campus at only a small c**t to the taxpayers. They are really confusing the fire-truck out of me (sorry, I c**t say the F-word).

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

The suffering inside Iraq can come to an end when Saddam Hussein's regime is replaced," said a top Clinton administration official at the time. "And I hope -- and most of the world community hopes -- that this regime based on terrorism and atrocities against his own people will be replaced. Over time, we hope to achieve that result." -- Al Gore(D)

Myth #1: "Increases in the minimum wage do not cause increases in unemployment."

The common sense notion that if you increase the price of something, all other things being equal, you will decrease the demand for that something, has been demonstrated through empirical evidence and theoretical equations and is not a matter of controversy among members of the economics profession.

Think of it this way. An increase in the minimum wage is essentially an employment tax levied on businesses that hire lower skilled workers.

Myth #2: "The cost of minimum wage increases will be absorbed by business and will not be passed along to consumers."

When wages increase due to higher productivity, there is no added "cost" to be passed on to consumers. But when wages rise because of government edict beyond what productivity gains warrant, there is a cost that is paid by the employer and, usually, depending on specific economic conditions, passed on in whole or in part to consumers.

Myth #3: "Minimum wage workers deserve wage increases on a regular basis, just like other workers."

People who started working at the minimum wage one or two years ago have very likely already achieved wage increases through the workings of the market --not by government decree.

Myth #4: "Increasing the standard of living of the working poor is part of the American Dream. It is what America is all about."

The proponents of this last myth believe that the government, not the labor market, should set wage levels -- that the government, not employers, should be responsible for bestowing wage increases to workers. They believe that the free market in labor should give way to government control (and that working people should look to elected officials as their benefactors).

I've learned that you cannot make someone love you. All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in...

I've learned that one good turn gets most of the blankets.

I've learned that no matter how much I care, some people are just jackasses.

I've learned that it takes years to build up trust, and it only takes suspicion, not proof, to destroy it.

I've learned that whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

I've learned that you shouldn't compare yourself to others - they are more screwed up than you think.

I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

I've learned that it is not what you wear; it is how you take it off.

I've learned that you can keep vomiting long after you think you're finished

I've learned to not sweat the petty things, and not pet the sweaty things.

I've learned that ex's are like fungus, and keep coming back.I've learned age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

I've learned that I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it.

I've learned that we are responsible for what we do, unless we are celebrities.

I've learned that artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

I've learned that 99% of the time when something isn't working in your house, one of your kids did it.

I've learned that there is a fine line between genius and insanity.

I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and all the less important ones just never go away. And the real pains in the ass are permanent.

Two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership are either dead or in jail. Their sanctuaries, sponsors, and kindred spirits in Afghanistan and Iraq are long gone. Detention is increasingly common for Islamicists in Europe and America. The Hamas intifada has failed..
...
Europe, led by France and Germany, saw a chance for both profit and psychological satisfaction by opposing the United States. But recently it has realized the short-sightedness of such a policy, and belatedly grasped that al Qaeda terrorists despise Euros as much if not more than they do Americans. European ingratitude has just about ensured an end to American subsidized defense of the continent. All this does not mean the world's other powers will aid us — far from it — only that they will continue opportunistically and in public to chide us while privately praying for our success.

So, the world of the radical Islamist shrinks. Moderate Arabs understand that they increasingly suffer from guilt-by-association by about everyone around the world — thanks to bin Laden and his epigones. The parlor game of anti-Americanism has turned deadly. Terrorists kill hundreds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, ignoring calls from once-appeasing imams to stop dismembering Muslims. Being anti-American in the Middle East does not necessarily win you exemption from al Qaeda. The fascists do not want to put a fashionable Islamic-nationalist veneer on upscale Arabs, but rather to transport them lock, stock, and barrel back to the Dark Ages.

Even countries like South Korea, Indonesia, and Japan are beginning to realize that the United States alone protects their sea-lanes to the Middle East, and that opportunistic posturing serves no purpose in a global war against beheaders and their world of barbarism other than to throw away 60 years of American military commitment. It is fashionable to say that the United States is isolated; few other than a socialist prime minister in Spain or a Howard Dean really believe that.

It is part of the territory of being a lawyer, and in particular a government lawyer advising principals, that you are called on to prescribe solutions in matters of judgment. Generally, there will be no "right" or "wrong" answer, and — in what is the hardest part — the lawyer must factor in that the decision ultimately will not be made by him, but rather by someone who thinks differently from him, and is beset by interests and incentives from which he is insulated. These circumstances impel the lawyer not simply to provide his view of the best answer but to spell out the entire range of possible answers, even the ones he disagrees with, and dispassionately make the best case for each.

That is why this contrived memos "controversy," half-baked by the media and grandstanding politicians, is so backward — and so harmful to good policymaking. First and foremost, the opinions of the advisers are utterly irrelevant unless it is established in the first instance that a decision maker actually did something, or issued some directive, that violated the law. It's the principal's action, not the agent's advice, that makes an offense. After all, if the principal transgressed, it is no defense that he was merely following his attorney's counsel; and if he acts properly, it is makes no difference that his lawyer gave him bum advice that he wisely ignored.