posted March 14, 2006 02:05 PM              

Bush's glorious Falllujah Kristalnacht was supposed to be a cakewalk, but it's quickly turned into the mother of all quagmires. With over 1200 innocent Iraqi casualties and a paltry 40 dead U.S. servicemen, the unlevel playing field couldn't be more obvious.

In any situation where the Marines are involved, enemy casualties exponentially, and quite unfairly, outnumber our own. So what accounts for this striking disparity? In part, the cocky Jarhead oath to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is to blame. Another key factor is the reckless attitude of upper military command. According to Amnesty International, Donald Rumsfeld's insistence on calling the insurgents "killers" might in fact be encouraging Marines to kill insurgents. But beneath all the macho rhetoric, a darker, uglier truth lurks.

According to Army Spc. Kris Clinkscales:"The fighters were generally recognizable by their face masks..."
Let that sink in for a moment. In other words, the Marines are rampaging through the streets of Fallujah, systematically executing any Iraqi wearing a ski mask.

Excuse me, but if I went around Aspen killing everyone who had a ski mask on, they'd lock me up and throw away the key. Have any of the geniuses at the Pentagon even considered that these dudes might simply be on their way to the slopes? Those shoulder-mounted RPGs look strikingly similar to a pair of skis being carried around to me. It would be easy for an uneducated military moron to confuse the two and gun down an innocent Iraqi ski bum. Shouldn't we be more careful and a little less indiscriminate in regards to who we're shooting at? Shouldn't we at least check to see if these so-called "insurgents" have lift tickets before we splatter their brains all over the sidewalk and shout "HOO-AHH, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?

Once upon a time, before Dumbya decided to get back at the varmint who almost kilt his paw, Babylonian snowbunnies could head for the slopes without being shot at by neanderthal "liberators". Habib could enjoy a long day of cross-country skiing and burning infidels, then relax at the lodge without a jarhead crashing in and popping a cap in his ass. Apparently, those days are over. Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war has not only destroyed a beautiful, vibrant culture - but a thriving ski industry as well.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/11/httpnewsyahooco.html

posted March 19, 2006 11:48 PM              

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/15/101347.shtml

March 20 is the third anniversary of the Bush regime's invasion of Iraq. U.S. military casualties to date are approximately 20,000 killed, wounded, maimed or disabled.

Iraqi civilian casualties number in the tens of thousands. Iraq's infrastructure is in ruins. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed. Fallujah, a city of 300,000 people, had 36,000 of its 50,000 homes destroyed by the U.S. military.

Half of the city's former population is displaced and living in tents.

Thousands of Iraqis have been detained in prisons and hundreds have been brutally tortured. America's reputation in the Muslim world is ruined.

The Bush regime expected a short "cakewalk" war to be followed by the imposition of a puppet government and permanent U.S. military bases. Instead, U.S. military forces are confronted with an insurgency that has denied control over Iraq to the U.S. military.

Chaos rules, and civil war may be coming on top of the insurgency.

On March 9, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man who has been totally wrong about Iraq, told Congress that if the unprecedented violence in Iraq breaks out in civil war, the United States will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down the uprising.

What Iraqi security forces? Iraq does not have a security force. The Shia have a security force, the Sunnis have a security force, and the Kurds have a security force. The sectarian militias control the streets, towns and cities. If civil war breaks out, the "Iraqi security force" will dissolve into the sectarian militias, leaving the U.S. military in the middle of the melee.

Is this what "support the troops" means?

President Bush's determination to remain in Iraq despite the obvious failure of the attempted occupation puts Bush at odds with the American public and with our troops. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that our troops should be withdrawn. An even larger majority of the troops themselves believe they should be withdrawn.

Yet Bush, who is incapable of admitting a mistake, persists in a strategic blunder that is turning into catastrophe.

Bush's support has fallen to 34 percent.

The war's out-of-pocket cost to date is approximately $300 billion - every dollar borrowed from foreigners. Economic and budgetary experts have calculated that the ultimate cost of Bush's Iraq war in terms of long-term care for veterans, interest on borrowed money and resources diverted from productive uses will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

What is being achieved for this enormous sacrifice?

No one knows.

Every reason we have been given for the Iraqi invasion has proven to be false. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Reports from U.N. weapons inspectors, top-level U.S. intelligence officials, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and leaked top-secret documents from the British Cabinet all make it unequivocally clear that the Bush regime first decided to invade Iraq and then looked around for a reason.

Saddam Hussein had no terrorist connection to Osama bin Laden and no role in the 9/11 attack. Hussein was a secular ruler totally at odds with bin Laden's Islamist aims.

Every informed person in the world knew this.

When the original justifications for the U.S. invasion collapsed, Bush said that the reason for the invasion was to rid Iraq of a dictator and to put a democracy in its place. Despite all the hoopla about democracy and elections, no Iraqi government has been able to form, and the country is on the brink of civil war. Some Middle East experts believe that violence will spread throughout the region.

The brutal truth is that America's responsibility is extreme. We have destroyed a country and created political chaos for no reason whatsoever.

Seldom in history has a government miscalculated as badly as Bush has in Iraq. More disturbingly, Bush shows no ability to recover from his mistake. All we get from our leader is pig-headed promises of victory that none of our military commanders believe.

Our entire government is lost in confusion. One day, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tell us that we are having great success in training an Iraqi military and will be able to begin withdrawing our troops in a year. The next day, they tell us that we will be fighting the war for decades.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Bush's attempt to cover up his mistake with patriotism will ultimately discredit patriotism. America has to be big enough to admit a mistake and to bring it to an end.

posted March 20, 2006 12:30 AM            

Quick – what columnist alleged in an article Thursday that President “Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about?” That Bush has used “bribery and coercion” to block “every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end”? That “in order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran,” he and a “’black opts’ [sic.] group will orchestrate [an] attack” on U.S. soil?

One would never expect to hear the author is “chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury” under Ronald Reagan. That progressively unhinged man is nationally syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts.

In a delusional column entitled “Iranophobia,” posted yesterday’s on LewRockwell.com, Roberts related “[o]ne of the more extraordinary suggestions” he had heard of how President Bush will develop this “pretext” to nuke Tehran:

"a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a U.S. port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the U.S. media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation."

He concluded:

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?

Fantasy? Let’s hope so.

Even on the far-Left, such theories would be unwelcome. Although Kurt Nimmo (a critic of DiscoverTheNetworks.org) and others have claimed for years that Bush secretly plans to pre-emptively decimate Iran, none have publicly claimed he would kill Americans as a pretext. The only detail Roberts omitted was whether Bush was doing the bidding of the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the British royal family, or the Vatican.

Not only is this irresponsible slander, it’s not even a new conspiracy theory. Last August, an internet rumor campaign claimed the Bush administration would set off a nuclear device in the port of Charleston, SC, during a military exercise, and use the backlash as to attack Iran. One of its promulgators was Webster Griffin Tarpley, who wrote an “unauthorized biography” of George H.W. Bush with Lyndon LaRouche’s house historian, Anton Chaitkin. Tarpley – who also claims 9/11 was an inside job – wrote last August:

The synthetic terror event required by the Bush-Cheney clique and its masters is likely to be conducted through the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus under the cover of a terror drill or a war exercise.

Antiwar.com’s Dennis “Justin” Raimondo also hinted:

The other weird aspect of this “nuke Iran” story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11…why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us? I shudder to think about it.

Greg Szymanski, a reporter for the UFO website ArcticBeacon.com and the American Free Press – which the ADL Anti-Defamation League has classified as “the most widely read publication on the fringe Right” – played a pivotal role in formulating this nonsensical theory. In his recounting, the Bush administration fired Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes for threatening to expose the nuclear plot, using his affair with a military woman as a cover. The theory of a U.S. nuclear strike on Charleston was soon circulated by such crazies as Information Clearing House, PrisonPlanet.com, and various “patriot” groups. (LaRouche’s own speculation predated others by weeks, writing last July: “With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a ‘Guns of August’ attack on Iran.”)

Conspiracists so pestered Charleston media about an impending Dixie doomsday that the local newspaper, The Post and Courier, called military brass to get the full story: a military exercise had been planned, in Virginia, to simulate a terrorist nuclear attack; no actual nuclear devices would be set off. No mushroom cloud appeared, and the conspiracy died out.

Until Roberts’ column on LewRockwell.com.

Roberts’ credulous recounting of this slander recalls Howard Dean’s allusion to the “most interesting theory” he had heard about 9/11, specifically that Bush had advance knowledge of the plot.

The Roberts-Raimondo-Rockwell wing of conservatism has become the nexus where extremist fantasies of Left and Right converge into a toxic mixture of venomous lunacy. The “Old Right-New Left Alliance” dates back to Murray Rothbard’s protests in the Vietnam era but revived during the rise of Pat Buchanan-style protectionism and isolationism; 9/11 has given it a new vibrancy altogether.

Like his late collaborator, Lew Rockwell has addressed leftist antiwar demonstrations. His website and the Buchanan journal The American Conservative featured the writings of Karen Kwiatkowski, who began her career with LaRouche and later graduated to Salon and MoveOn.org. Since the advent of the War on Terror, the Rockwellites have birthed a rhetoric that is at once indistinguishable from the far-Left and the White-Wing.

The strange career of Paul Craig Roberts has been a microcosm of this trend. In recent years, the former Reaganite has begun writing for Alexander Cockburn’s ultra-leftist website Counterpunch. Roberts’ writings, however, best illustrate his sad intellectual decline.

Roberts has written that killing Americans is not the full extent of Bush’s perfidious hope: the “Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea.” Bush-the-liar is provoking World War III in Iran with his prevarications. “The Bush administration is leveling false charges against Iran, just as it did against Iraq, of conspiring to make nuclear weapons. These charges are known to be false by the Bush administration and by the entire world.” That would come as news, given the recent recordings in which Iranian officials acknowledge the obvious: their nuclear program was not intended to fulfill energy needs. The 444-day terrorist ordeal of Terry Anderson? That was our fault, too:

It is past time for the U.S. to give up its quarter century feud with Iran. U.S. interference in Iranian internal affairs was the source of the feud. We need to acknowledge it and get over it.

His conclusion could hardly have been stated with less fervor or illogic by any fist-pumping leftist at an International ANSWER rally:

There would be no terrorism if the U.S. would stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries and if Israel stopped stealing the West Bank from the Palestinians. The Bush administration knows this, and that is why the administration spreads the propagandistic lie that “they” (Muslims) hate us and our way of life. This lie is the excuse for American aggression.

Roberts has seen Bush’s malfeasance before. In July 2004, he pronounced, “everyone interested in the truth…knows that Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, with the permission of Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, created an unofficial ‘Iraqi intelligence cell’ within the Pentagon to produce propaganda to justify an invasion of Iraq.” Somehow, this eluded the 9/11 Commission and every other body ever to investigate the worldwide intelligence failure over Iraqi WMDs.

Roberts has declared the war in Iraq lost, not to mention criminal. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are “torture centers,” and Bush would be “prosecuted.” (This although Gitmo’s well-fed detainees are regularly provided with religious materials and motherly affection by female agents in flowing dresses.) His pessimism about winning the War on Terror dates literally to its inception. Two days after 9/11, Roberts wrote, “a guilt-ridden people are no match for fanatical opponents who believe in their cause.”

His writings also seemingly justify terrorist attacks against innocent Americans, because, like Ward Churchill, he believes there are no innocent Americans. “Americans are complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children as ‘collateral damage,’” he writes. So what is difference between a military target and a “complicit” family of four in Des Moines?

However, his concerns are not confined to foreign affairs; he believes the United States and Great Britain are becoming “police states at home.” Indeed, he writes, “The Bush regime is asserting the Führer Principle, and Americans are buying it.”By April 2004, he had already deemed America “locked on a course toward conscription and a wider war.” This he wrote six months before House Republicans defeated a bill, opposed by the White House and introduced by a leftist Democrat, that would reinstate the draft.

Bush, he claims, has run roughshod over civil liberties, torturing American citizens. “The prohibition against torture,” he informed, “has been breached by the practice of plea bargaining.”

He continued that the Bush/Ashcroft police state had destroyed the fundamentals of American jurisprudence by prosecuting pro-terror lawyer Lynne Stewart, for illegally passing messages on to terrorists overseas:

The attorney-client privilege, another great achievement, has been breached by the Lynne Stewart case. As the attorney for a terrorist, Stewart represented her client in ways disapproved by prosecutors. Stewart was indicted, tried, and convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

Nor was she the only victim of heavy-handed executive prosecutors in Roberts’ view: “The federal charges against [American Taliban John Walker] Lindh are trumped up charges.” After all, “The Taliban did not attack the U.S. The U.S. attacked the Taliban.”

He lauded Al Gore’s speech at Constitution Hall in January, dubbing it “the first sign of leadership from the Democratic Party in six years.” He blamed its allegedly slight coverage on the “fact” that “U.S. media now highly concentrated in a few corporate hands.” Of course, Gore’s address was filled with blatant falsehoods. The sour ex-president-elect claimed President Bush had violated federal law by wiretapping terrorists. (Roberts also blasted the NSA anti-terrorist spying program and lambasted the New York Times for not exposing it earlier.) Gore similarly fibbed that Bush’s interrogation policies “plainly constitute torture” and “over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured.” Gore shortly headed overseas to spread the same deception.

Roberts, who shares many of the moral concerns of religious conservatives, saluted Jimmy Carter’s newest book, Our Endangered Values, a rambling collection of bile alleging the Bush administration is fascistic, torturous, and racist, and that Southern Baptists and the late Pope John Paul II are responsible for Islamic female circumcision. Roberts jumps on Carter’s bandwagon, claiming, “children as young as 8 years old are being held in indefinite detention and tortured.” To understand Gitmo, Roberts also recommends the book Hitler’s Prisons.

Paul Craig Roberts has outstripped both Gore and Carter in his claims of the Bush police state. This Reagan appointee claims Bush is preparing concentration camps. Three weeks ago, he declaimed, “We now read of Halliburton awarded a $350 million contract to build detention camps in the United States.” (In the same column, he asserted Nikita Kruschev recognized the evil of Stalinism and “brought it to an end.” Pity no one notified Solzenitsyn or Sakharov.)

An equal opportunity irrationalist, Roberts has also suggested the Clinton-era Oklahoma City bombing may have been the consequence of an FBI “sting operation that went awry.”

Although he has compared President Bush unfavorably with Clinton and smeared the Swift Boat Vets, he would not find himself at home in the Democratic Party, either; he referred to that organization as “a Nazi Party” in 2000. Instead, while favorably reviewing Where the Right Went Wrong, he asked, “Having experienced the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, do Americans wish they had elected Patrick J. Buchanan president?” Based upon previous election results, apparently Roberts is among the less-than-one-percent of the electorate that does.

Roberts shares several common concerns with modern Buchananites: the omnipresent influence of neocons, Zionist power generally, and the society’s lack of reverence for white Christian civilization. Roberts’ columns teem with hand-wringing references to “neocons.” The Committee on the Present Danger, he warns, “consists of neoconservatives who are, in effect, an unregistered lobby group for Israel’s Likud Party.” The 9/11 reference above to “a guilt-ridden people” indicated the lack of white cohesion in dealing with the dusky Arab menace, a concern he raised more than once.

Although the white middle class did not turn out for Pat in 2000, Roberts forecast, “Sooner or later whites will wake up to the realization that they are being marginalized in their own country, and they will cease to support the two political parties that have marginalized them.”

Roberts has defended Strom Thurmond’s 1948 Dixiecrat run for the presidency, and warned of the constant “marginalization of native-born white citizens.” Not surprisingly, he has belittled the Supreme Court’s Brown v. the Board of Education decision, which he states, “strikes at the heart of democracy.” Indeed, he claims America was well on its way to desegregation without the decision, as proven by…federal documents of the Truman administration. Presumably the federalized National Guard troops stationed in Little Rock and Birmingham were part of Eisenhower and Kennedy’s police state designs.

Roberts also shows antipathy for the first Republican president. Roberts declares there is much evidence that Abraham Lincoln “invaded” the South “in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire.” Seemingly, for Roberts as so many other paleocons, our nation’s greatest president is a villain, just like the present one.

Bush and Lincoln; not bad company to share.

Whatever his party leanings, one thing is clear: Roberts considers modern conservatives the enemy. Last month, he wrote, “Last week’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism.” Why? Because attendees jeered Bush administration critic Bob Barr. (Roberts would have made a better case by mentioning the Muslim fundamentalists and leftists who attended CPAC this year.) In fact, Roberts has denounced the conservative movement as brownshirted fascism for some time. Already by October 2004, he had likened conservatives to “brownshirts.” Last June, he referred to “Bush and his neocon brownshirts” before branding Bush a “war criminal.” Last February 15, he insisted the conservative media had “joined the New Brownshirts.” On May Day 2004, he wrote his former publication, National Review, was possessed of the “spirit” of “Hitler and Stalin.”

posted March 22, 2006 12:22 AM              

Curt Weldon: Bin Laden Is Dead

Rep. Curt Weldon, who broke the Able Danger story last year revealing that military intelligence had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat before the 9/11 attacks, now says that Osama bin Laden has died.

Weldon made the stunning claim during an interview Wednesday with the Philadelphia Inquirer, which reported: "Weldon is making explosive new allegations. He says a high-level source has told him that terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has died in Iran, where he has been in hiding."

Weldon cited as his source an Iranian exile code-named Ali, telling the paper: "Ali's told me that Osama bin Laden is dead. He died in Iran."

Weldon said he last spoke to Ali three weeks ago. The Iranian exile was a prominent source for his 2005 book, "Countdown to Terror." The book also contained the first mention of the Able Danger data mining operation.

The Pennsylvania Republican has long alleged that bin Laden has been using Iran for sanctuary.

In June last year, Weldon said in a TV interview: "I'm confident that I know for sure that [bin Laden] has been in and out of Iran ... Two years ago, he was in the southern town of Ladis, 10 kilometers inside the Pakistan border. I also know that earlier this year, he had a meeting with al-Zarqawi in Tehran ...

"If you look at the recent comments coming out of both the CIA and some of our military generals in theater, they're now acknowledging the same thing that I've been saying - that in fact, he's been in and out of Iran.

"[But] no one can prove it exactly until we capture him."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/17/64243.shtml

"who's that again?

posted March 22, 2006 10:59 PM              

STUDY CLAIMS: Confident, resilient, self-reliant kids grow up to be liberals; Whiny children: conservatives...

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Cont entServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=970599119419

posted April 01, 2006 02:01 AM              

Air Warming Above Antarctica

NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, March 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The air over Antarctica is warming even faster than in other parts of the world, according to an analysis of 30 years of weather balloon data.

While surface warming has been reported in parts of Antarctica, this is the first report of broad-scale climate change across the whole continent, the British Antarctic Survey says in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The weather balloon data show a warming of 0.9 degree to 1.3 degree Fahrenheit per decade over the last 30 years. By contrast, the average worldwide temperature has risen 0.2 degree per decade in that time, according to the paper.

Detailed records from the weather balloons launched at nine stations around the continent, including Russian records, have only recently become available, the researchers said.

The research team led by John Turner reported that they could not provide a definite cause for the warming, but added that the observed increases are what would be expected as a result of warming caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat from the sun in the atmosphere.

© 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/30/220705.shtml?s=te

posted April 01, 2006 02:05 AM              

I am so sick of all of this..no one gets it!

you can ramble on all you want..blame all you want..we set this in motion..we are the cause and effect..do you get it?

posted April 10, 2006 09:27 PM              

Monday, April 10, 2006 1:19 p.m. EDT

Study: Rush Limbaugh Dominates Talk Radio

Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh still dominates the radio talk show business, a new study finds.

According to a recently released survey by the Benchmark Company, Limbaugh was "the most widely identified radio talk-show host" in America - with some 94 percent of Americans indicating they know who he is.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/10/132931.shtml?s=ic

except for jwhop, who's never heard of him =P

posted April 20, 2006 07:35 PM              

Sen. Joe Biden: ‘No One Believes the President'

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., says President Bush has no credibility among leaders of foreign nations when it comes to discussions of foreign policy.

Biden, appearing on MSNBC’s "Imus in the Morning" show, said Bush lost credibility when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq and his reluctance to apologize for "coming clean on Iraq” is hurting the nation’s reputation abroad.

"The president has yet to be straight with the American people on what the deal in Iraq is,” Biden said. "All the way back since Abu Ghraib, the president has yet to be straight about the mistakes he has made ... He has no credibility. No one believes the president of the United States on matters of foreign policy.”

On the recent White House personnel moves, Biden doesn’t think the changes will do much to change policy, unless Bush does something "big,” like fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"It’s about the fact that no one has faith in the United States of America as long as Rumsfeld is running the show,” Biden said. "Look where we are now: Nobody in the world is prepared to trust the president of the United States, led by Donald Rumsfeld leading the military to use military force against Iran.

Story Continues Below

"We can’t sustain this lack of credibility for the next 2 1/2 years,” Biden said.

Biden said it would be a big mistake for the U.S. to launch a military strike against Iran, especially since he believes Iran is 5-10 years away from being able to launch nuclear missiles of their own.

Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?
Can You STILL Get Rich In Real Estate?
Urgent Message from Newt
How To Become An Internet Millionaire

"There are 70 million people in Iran," Biden said. "These guys are not Iraq. They have ways in which they can make it very painful for the United States."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/20/110847.shtml?s=ic

posted May 28, 2006 08:55 PM              

Godless

Save Almost $23!

Ann Coulter's long-awaited new book is due out in June – but it's already creating major media buzz.

The Drudge Report says that "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" is such a hot item that Ann Coulter "received one of the largest advances paid to a conservative author" for the manuscript.

In her book, Ann holds nothing back in detailing liberalism's war on religion and yes, God.
Reportedly, chapter titles include "On the Seventh Day God Rested and Liberals Schemed" and "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion."

For sure, copies of Ann's latest will sell out fast – so reserve your copy today at an incredibly low price. This book retails for almost $28 – so with our offer you'll save almost $23 off the retail price.

This is a limited offer so act now! Just Go Here Now.

Ann Coulter has authored blockbuster after blockbuster, including "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" and "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right."

She is the conservative liberals hate most . . . and her latest "Godless" will only add to their anger.

Ann's book also offers the perfect antidote to "Da Vinci Code" madness. Her new "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" is an eye-opening tour de force that deftly exposes the hostility liberals have toward traditional religion.

Using her rhetorical scalpel, Coulter shows convincingly that this hostility stems from the fact that liberalism is itself a religion – a godless one.

And she demonstrates how, thanks to liberals who dominate our courts, our schools, our government bureaucracies and our media, liberalism is now the established religion of our country.

In her new book, Coulter – author of the best-sellers “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)” and “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right” – says the Church of Liberalism has its own:

* Saints (JFK).
* Holy documents (Roe v. Wade).
* Martyrs (Soviet spy Alger Hiss).
* Churches (public schools, where prayer is banned).
* Clergy (teachers in public schools).
* Sacraments (abortion).
* Cosmology (mankind is an accident).
* Creation myth (Darwin’s theory of evolution).

Coulter uncovers the essential truth about Darwinism that liberals won't confront: It is bogus science.

After a century and a half of examining the fossil record, Coulter states, evolution's proponents have failed to substantiate its claims, and instead one supposed piece of evidence after another has been exposed as a hoax.

But liberals cling devotedly to Darwinism, Coulter says, because they desperately need to disprove the possibility of God’s existence at any cost – and will accept no challenges to their “official religion.”
http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless/?PROMO_CODE=1E65-1

CAVUTO: All right, June 6th, 2006: 6-6-6. It's the sign of the devil, they say, and this year, the release of Godless, Ann Coulter's new book, and the latest attack on liberals. It's probably not a coincidence. Ann joins us now from West Palm Beach, Florida. Ann, that can't be an accident, can it?

COULTER: No, it's my little tribute to liberals, to have it come out on 6-6-6.

CAVUTO: Why? What are you saying?

COULTER: Uh, godless.

CAVUTO: All right --

COULTER: That's all -- that's all I can tell you, what the title is.

CAVUTO: Why are they godless? Why are they godless?

COULTER: I'm not talking about the book until 6-6-6.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120004

posted June 07, 2006 12:45 AM              

quote:

---

"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process."

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." --ann coulter On the 9-11 widows

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/06.html#a8602

---

*********

Ann Coulter: 'The Da Vinci Code' Is Laughable

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, June 6, 2006

In Ann Coulter's new book "Godless – The Church Of Liberalism" the best-selling author argues that in addition to being a political movement and philosophy, liberalism is a twisted religion whose deity is itself.

And in an exclusive interview with NewsMax, the author of "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" and other best-selling works demonstrates the scathing wit that readers have come to expect in her books and commentaries. [Editor's Note: Get Ann's new book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

If liberalism is a religion, we asked Ann, does it have its own version of Judaism and Christianity's Ten Commandments? She replied that it does – it consists of "Breaking the real Ten Commandments." We asked her if the religion of the left has an equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church's penalty of excommunication.

Her answer: "Banishment from [Vanity Fair editor] Graydon Carter's Oscar Party," one of the holiest rites of obligation for the beautiful people who worship at the altar of liberalism.

Turning to liberalism's theology, we asked Ann if their religion claims to be the one,(un)holy and true Church, superior to all others. They can't make that claim, Ann told us, because it would prove too costly: "They don't acknowledge being a church. If they did they'd lose their government funding."

Story Continues Below

Noting her skillful argument that the theory of evolution is a scientific hoax, we asked why otherwise intelligent members of the scientific community accept it at face value. It's all about going along to get along, or just plain ignorance, Ann explained. "Other than those who are keeping their mouths shut because they want to gain tenure and avoid witch hunts, who says they're ‘otherwise intelligent'?"

With the movie and the book "The Da Vinci Code" – a book Ann said she has not read - attracting massive print and TV coverage, we wondered if the media's fervent embrace of the blasphemous book and their shameful promotion of the film is a weapon designed to discredit not only the Catholic Church, but Christianity itself.

Ann was less concerned about its ultimate effects, however, commenting on the wretched reviews of the film and the bizarre hairdo of star Tom Hanks. She told NewsMax: "Apparently the movie is so bad it's not going to do much of anything. I gather it was supposed to be an affront to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, but it's turning out mostly to be an affront to every living hairstylist."

We asked: Does the left's bias in favor of the failed policies of Marxism mean that Marxism and the Church of Liberalism are one and the same?

Her answer: "No, the Marxists were a little brighter."

In "Godless," Ann shows how the liberal judiciary and their cohorts in Congress have sought to all but decriminalize crime, either reducing punishment or eliminating it.

NewsMax wanted to know if among the doctrines of the Church of Liberalism is disbelief in the very existence of evil. She explained that evil simply does not exist "in the liberal belief system," but then added: "Actually I misspoke - there is one example of pure, unadulterated evil in the liberal worldview: Dick Cheney."

In her book Ann argues that environmentalists and liberals in general hate humanity and lust after a world where the number of people is vastly reduced. We wondered if that's why they see abortion as their holiest sacrament.

Said Ann: "Well, it's one component, but you must remember that liberals have other sacraments, too - such as polymorphous perversity and putting harmless businessmen in jail."

Following up, we asked if liberal's hatred of humanity explains why the Clinton administration - once an archdiocese of the Church of Liberalism - stood idly by while millions were slain in Uganda.

Her response: "No, actually he was just too distracted by what was under his desk at the moment. Although I grant your point that liberals are never sorry to rid the world of what they - like Goebbels - view as ‘useless eaters' in order to improve the parking situation in Santa Monica."

The 7 Hottest Funds at Vanguard ? Free Report!
Christian Persecution still exists today!
How to Become an Internet Millionaire
Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?
We wanted to know what kind of reaction "Godless" has been getting from the left – have they yet called for her to be burned at the stake as a dangerous heretic?

"No," she said, explaining that the process of piling wood around her and setting it on fire "would contribute to global warming." Instead, all the liberals want is "to have me banned from TV, radio, the Internet and the speaking circuit because they're the free speech party."

She told NewsMax she doesn't worry about getting fewer invitations to speak on college campuses for fear she'll spread heresy among the budding undergraduate faithful because "I assure you, the colleges don't invite me to speak now. However, I expect the young Republicans who do invite me to be more enthusiastic than ever."

Among Ann's other comments:

# Asked if she believes Hillary Clinton when she says she has found religion, Ann replied: "Have you ever known a Clinton to lie?"

# Noting that Pat Robertson was attacked when he said we should kill Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, we asked if Ann thought he had done anything wrong. Her comment: "People are always talking about taking out Chavez but nobody ever seems to do anything about it."

# Asked how she explains the tremendous success of Mel Gibson's "Passion," she said: "Unlike ‘Pretty Woman,' ‘The Passion of the Christ' was based on a true story."

# When we wondered what it would take for Ann to decide one day that she had to toss her hat in the political ring and run for office, she pledged: "I'll announce my candidacy for public office the day after Dennis Kucinich's presidential inauguration."

# Finally, we asked what her next book was going to be about. "I'm working on a Muslim version of ‘The Da Vinci Code' in which the prophet is a big phony, he leads a double life, his whole religion is based on a lie, etc., etc. That won't be offensive to anybody, will it?

posted June 07, 2006 05:45 PM              

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Ann Coulter for a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on a group of outspoken 9/11 widows, whom the right-wing television pundit described as "self-obsessed" and enjoying their husbands' deaths.

Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." [Editor's Note: Get Ann Coulter's new book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

Clinton, who has felt Coulter's wrath over the years, responded angrily on Wednesday.

"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,"' the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."

The New York Democrat and former first lady said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."

Story Continues Below

The senator spoke after delivering a speech on protecting children from exposure to sex- and violence-saturated media.

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, and reiterated her stance, saying the women used their grief "to make a political point."

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of them live.

They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza of New Jersey.

The women, who are still pushing for changes in how the government guards against future attacks, issued a joint statement after Coulter's television appearance.

"We have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulters statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day," the women said.

© 2006 Associated Press.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/7/143313.shtml?s=lh

posted June 07, 2006 05:50 PM              

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, June 6, 2006

"They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator." Romans 1:25-26

Ordinarily, Ann Coulter punctures liberalism's balloon with the needle of her pointed wit.

In "Godless – The Church of Liberalism," her best work ever, she demolishes it with a pickaxe, leaving nothing but a pile of rubble where the high temple of the Church of Liberalism once stood [Editor's Note: Get Ann's new book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

It seems a stretch to call a creed that rests on atheism an ecclesiastical institution, but she makes a prima facie case for the claim that modern day liberalism is a religion, demonstrating that its "church" bears all the earmarks of a religious organization.

"It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total world view, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe," she writes.

"Liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as a ‘religion.'"

Story Continues Below

It is, she explains "a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul."

"Godless" however, is no mere diatribe. In it Coulter takes each facet of the theology of liberalism and holds it up in the sunlight of truth and reason. "Everything liberals believe is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts," Coulter observes.

She believes that "human progress results from the spark of divinity in the human soul, while the liberal religion holds that human progress is achieved through sex and death." Moreover, "while we say humans are made in the image and likeness of God, liberals say we are no different morally from apes.

"The whole panoply of nutty things liberals believe flows from their belief that man is just another animal . . . Only their core rejection of God can explain the bewildering array of liberal positions: We must save [murderer] Tookie Williams while slaughtering the unborn, eat natural foods while acquiring disease from casual hookups, halt human development so that the furbish lousewort can be fruitful and multiply." [Editor's Note: Get Ann's new book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

The Theology of Liberalism

Coulter does not rely on mere rhetoric to prove her point, although the rhetoric is so sharp and witty that if sarcasm were liquid, readers would drown in it. Chapter by chapter she examines the doctrines of the Church of Liberalism, and by the time you've finished the book you realize that their creed cannot survive exposure to fact and reason.

# Liberal's Theology of Crime and Punishment - "Assuming you aren't a fetus, the left's most dangerous religious belief is their adoration of dangerous criminals," Coulter writes. "Environmentalists can be dismissed as stupid girls who like birds, but liberals' admiration of dangerous predators is a direct threat to your health."

She cites cases where obviously dangerous killers were set free to prey on society - such as Arthur Shawcross, who molested and murdered a 10-year-old boy and later raped and murdered an 8-year-old girl. Tried only for the second killing, Shawcross was paroled after 15 years and relocated to Rochester, N.Y., where within just two years he committed 11 more murders.
# Liberalism's Saints and Martyrs - Convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, Tookie Williams, Sacco and Vanzetti (the evidence shows they really were guilty), traitors Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs are all enshrined in the hagiography of liberalism's religion. Coulter also reveals the true story of Willie Horton, a killer and sadistic rapist falsely and repeatedly portrayed by the Democrats as a victim of GOP racism.

# Liberalism's Sacrament - "No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time – undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals – the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion . . . "To liberals, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate . . .

"The Democrats will sell out blacks, blue-collar workers, Catholics, Hispanics and the elderly. But they will never cross NARAL [The National Abortion Rights Action League]. The most important thing isn't the little guy, the poor, the voiceless, civil rights, or the ‘other America.' The most important value to liberals is destroying human life."

# Liberalism's Doctrine of Infallibility – Liberals' belief that their church has a divine right to be the sole purveyor of news has been challenged by the collapse of the left's media monopoly and the rise of the alternative media.

She traces the rout of the so-called mainstream media to the emergence of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News channel, which "nearly drove liberals berserk: they were supposed to control 100 percent of news dissemination . . . the mere existence of one solitary network that doesn't toe the party line has driven the Left insane."

# Liberalism's Clergy - "The only group in society that must be spoken of in reverential terms all the time, no matter what, is public schoolteachers. Attack the Boy Scouts, boycott Mel Gibson, put Christ in a jar of urine – but don't dare say anything bad about teachers." She suggests that "it's well past time for liberalism to be declared a religion and banned from public schools."

# Liberalism's Doctrine of the Sanctity of (junk) Science – Liberals invoking "the sanctity of ‘science' to promote their crackpot ideas" creates "the same uneasy feeling as listening to Bill Clinton cite scripture."

Coulter points to liberalism's lies and distortions on stem cell research, the banning of DDT based on falsehoods that condemned millions of Africans to death from malaria, the claim that global warming is causing hurricanes, the hysteria over the dangers of heterosexual AIDS, and the idea that men and women have the same aptitude for science and math. [Editor's Note: Get Ann's new book for just $4.99 – Save $23! Go Here Now]

The 7 Hottest Funds at Vanguard ? Free Report!
Christian Persecution still exists today!
How to Become an Internet Millionaire
Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?

Darwinism Is Absurd

Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God.

"The fundamental difference between our religion and theirs is that theirs always tells them what they want to hear," Coulter declares.

"Darwinism never disappoints the liberals. They never say ‘Well, I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight, but that would violate Darwinism.' They can't even say ‘I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight with a goat, but that would violate Darwinism.' If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation. Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's science, which they hate, but out of some wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally."

With Pontius Pilate, the Darwiniacs ask "what is truth?" Their answer: Whatever they want it to be.

"The truth," Coulter writes, "is the truth whether we like it or not.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/5/171405.shtml?s=lh

********

what an incredibly cogent argument against evolution!!!

posted June 07, 2006 06:58 PM              

quote:

---

I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.

---

And she has no logic either...

quote:

---

But liberals cling devotedly to Darwinism, Coulter says, because they desperately need to disprove the possibility of God’s existence at any cost – and will accept no challenges to their “official religion.”

---

posted June 07, 2006 08:53 PM            

"How does Darwinism rule out God's existence"

LMAO are you freaking kidding? Evolution (or Darwins theory of Evolution) is based on the premise that we evolved from primordial goo from a Big Bang theory (it is a hell of a lot more indepth than that, but I am paraphrasing to make it simple) If we evolved we were then NOT created by a God.. get it?

Creation (God) vs Evolution (no God) unless you want to bring in various factors such as micro-evolution or the theory of Scientific creationism which attributes beginnings to a God.

Maybe she is a heartless B1tch but she is saying what so many of us have been thinking. Hell - why should you care - many of the far left believe we deserved 9-11 because of our Evil Western ways. If that is to be believed then that is a justification for the deaths of civilians and therefore why feel sorry for their survivors?

Ann Coulter is referring to the mulititude of widows that came out and wanted MORE MORE MORE from our Government than any of those people would have been paid had the worked at the trade centers for their entire lives. Yet, when we suggest going after the terrorist funds- that's a big no no.. why not? Why not seize the money being funneled through Mosques and landing in the hands of Hezbollah or Hammas?

But, why should the US government make each widow or widower a millionaire when WE were ALL attacked? What makes a firefighter life worth more if they died as a result of 9-11 vs if they died saving a child from a burning home?

What makes the life of a shoeshine man worth more because he died in the trade center vs if he had been randomly shot by a madman on the subway?

So called survivors were applying for tons of money, only to find out THERE SIG OTHERS WERE NEVER THERE.

posted June 07, 2006 08:57 PM            

Then again, some people will believe all the evil diatribe that spews from Pelosi's mouth, clap vigorously for crap that Madonna says about the President while ******* themselves when Babs lights up on the US and Bush.

I suppose I feel the same about about their supporters as you and DD feel about those that think Ann Coulter has it right. I do think she gets carried away, but not as much as I think the Media likes to cut and paste her sound bites as well as what excerpts they print. I have read her books and they are nothing like what is protrayed in the media.

posted June 07, 2006 09:06 PM              

It's not exactly what she says, pid, it's her shrillness in saying it.
(We could probably debate that point, but to me, she's shrill.)
Don't get me wrong - I'm pretty liberal, d@mn near a red commie for being on a military post in lower Alabama, and don't agree with the great majority of what she says - but I'd be much more inclined to listen and consider her points if she wasn't so...very the way she is in saying it.

Hell, I like die-hard conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and Ben Stein - I don't necessarily agree with them, but they say what they say rather than scream it.

posted June 07, 2006 09:15 PM              

quote:

---

How does Darwinism rule out God's existence"

LMAO are you freaking kidding? Evolution (or Darwins theory of Evolution) is based on the premise that we evolved from primordial goo from a Big Bang theory (it is a hell of a lot more indepth than that, but I am paraphrasing to make it simple) If we evolved we were then NOT created by a God.. get it?

---

Im sorry you can't understand me pidaua...and Im not sure I could do anything about that. No I don't need to rethink my argument. You're so comfortable in your little left vs right, black vs. white that I dont want to worry your poor little mind with my views which no doubt will automatically go against your Righty views no matter what. So I wont even get started on evolution and God.

quote:

---

Maybe she is a heartless B1tch but she is saying what so many of us have been thinking. Hell - why should you care - many of the far left believe we deserved 9-11 because of our Evil Western ways. If that is to be believed then that is a justification for the deaths of civilians and therefore why feel sorry for their survivors?

---

Im surprised that Americans feel this way about their own people, victims of the tragic 9/11 attacks. I can understand how their asking for money would make people upset. Why not save your money by not going to war with every other country you don't like or want to convert?

Btw, you keep proving to me how judgmental you are..just because Im Muslim or because someone is on the Left you think you can automatically label them anyway you see fit...to fit your stupid Right wing stereotypes about the others...like thinking Lefts and Muslims believe the 9/11 attacks were justified.