Bush's "needless war"
Accusing the president of "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering," Sen.
Edward Kennedy delivers a scathing indictment of the administration's
case for invading Iraq.

Editor's note: Following are prepared remarks for a speech by Sen.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations
in Washington on March 5.

- - - - - - - - - - - -


March 6, 2004 | Thank you, Glenn Kessler, for that generous
introduction. As you all know, Glenn does an outstanding job covering
diplomacy and foreign policy for The Washington Post.

It's a privilege to be here today with the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Council and its members have a distinguished record of notable
contributions to the national debate over the years. On the most
important foreign policy issues confronting our nation and the world,
the Council is at the forefront. Your views and analyses are more
important than ever today, as America tries to find its way in this
vastly transformed modern world.

The nation is engaged in a major ongoing debate about why America went
to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear
weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Over two centuries ago, John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to
let facts and evidence guide actions and policies. He said, "Facts are
stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and
evidence." Listen to those words again, and you can hear John Adams
speaking to us now about Iraq. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever
may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Tragically, in making the decision to go to war in Iraq, the Bush
administration allowed its wishes, its inclinations, and its passions to
alter the state of facts and the evidence of the threat we faced from Iraq.

A month ago, in an address at Georgetown University, CIA Director George
Tenet discussed the strengths and flaws in the intelligence on Iraq.
Tenet testified to several Senate and House committees on these issues,
and next Tuesday, he will come before our Senate Armed Services
Committee. He will have an opportunity to explain why he waited until
last month to publicly state the facts and evidence on these fundamental
questions, and why he was so silent when it mattered most -- in the days
and months leading up to the war.

If he feels that the White House altered the facts, or misused the
intelligence, or ignored it and relied on dubious sources in the Iraqi
exile community, Tenet should say so, and say it plainly.

It is not sufficient for Tenet to say only, as he did last week to the
Senate Intelligence Committee, that we must be patient. When he was
appointed Director of Central Intelligence in 1997, Tenet said to
President Clinton, " ... I have believed that you ... and the vice
president must be provided with ... complete and objective intelligence.
.... We must always be straight and tell you the facts as we know them."
The American people and our men and women serving in Iraq deserve the
facts and they deserve answers now.

The rushed decision to invade Iraq cannot all be blamed on flawed
intelligence. If we view these events simply as an intelligence failure
-- rather than a larger failure of decision-making and leadership -- we
will learn the wrong lessons.

The more we find out, the clearer it becomes that any failure in the
intelligence itself is dwarfed by the administration's manipulation of
the intelligence in making the case for war. Specific warnings from the
intelligence community were consistently ignored as the administration
rushed toward war.

We now know that from the moment President Bush took office, Iraq was
given high priority as unfinished business from the first Bush
administration.

According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron
Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," Iraq was on the agenda at the
very first meeting of the National Security Council, just 10 days after
President Bush's inauguration in 2001. At that meeting, the president
quickly -- and wrongly -- concluded that the U.S. could not do much
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said we should "pull out of
that situation," and then turned to a discussion of "how Iraq is
destabilizing the region."

Secretary O'Neill remembers, "Getting Hussein was now the
administration's focus. From the start, we were building the case
against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq
into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It
was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of It -- the
president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

By the end of February 2001, the talk on Iraq was mostly about how --
and how quickly -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was
clearly frustrated with what the intelligence community was providing.
According to Secretary O'Neill, on May 16, 2001, he and the other
principals of the National Security Council met with the president to
discuss the Middle East. Tenet presented his intelligence report, and
told the president that it was still only speculation whether Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction, or was even starting a program to build
such weapons.

Secretary O'Neill says, "Everything Tenet sent up to Bush and [Vice
President Dick] Cheney about Iraq was very judicious and precisely
qualified. The president was clearly very interested in weapons or
weapons programs -- and frustrated about our weak intelligence
capability -- but Tenet was clearly being careful to say, here's the
little that we know and the great deal that we don't. That wouldn't
change, and I read those CIA reports for two years," said O'Neill.

Then came 9/11. In the months that followed, the war in Afghanistan and
the hunt for Osama bin Laden had obvious priority. Al Qaeda was clearly
the most imminent threat to our national security. In fact, in his
testimony to Congress in February 2001, one month after President Bush's
inauguration and seven months before 9/11, Tenet had said, "Osama bin
Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the
most immediate and serious threat." That testimony emphasized the clear
danger of bin Laden in light of the specific attacks in previous years
on American citizens and American institutions.

In February 2002, five months after 9/11, Tenet testified, "Last year, I
told you that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network were the most
immediate and serious threat this country faced. This remains true
despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the
network elsewhere."

Even during the buildup to the war in Iraq, in February 2003, Tenet
again testified, "The threat from al Qaeda remains. ... We place no
limitations on our expectations on what al Qaeda might do to survive.
.... Al Qaeda is living in the expectation of resuming the offensive."

In his testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet
repeated his earlier warnings. He said again that Al Qaeda is not
defeated and that "We are still at war. ... This is a learning
organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its
friends and allies."

Tenet never used that kind of strong language to describe the threat
from Iraq. Yet despite all the clear and consistent warnings about Al
Qaeda, by the summer of 2002, President Bush was ready for war with
Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was no longer in the headlines or at the
center of attention. Bin Laden was hard to find, the economy was in
trouble, and so was the president's approval rating in the polls.

[White House political adviser] Karl Rove had tipped his hand earlier by
stating that the war on terrorism could bring political benefits as
well. The president's undeniable goal was to convince the American
people that war was necessary -- and necessary soon, because
soon-to-be-acquired nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein could
easily be handed off to terrorists.

This conclusion was not supported by the facts, but the intelligence
could be retrofitted to support it. Greg Thielmann, former director of
the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, put it
bluntly last July. He said, "Some of the fault lies with the performance
of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior
officials misused the information they were provided." He said, "They
surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was
bizarre. The secretary of defense had this huge Defense Intelligence
Agency, and he went around it." Thielmann also said, "This
administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude, its top-down
use of intelligence: we know the answers; give us the intelligence to
support those answers. ... Going down the list of administration
deficiencies, or distortions, one has to talk about, first and foremost,
the nuclear threat being hyped," he said.

David Albright, the former weapons inspector with the International
Atomic Energy Agency, put it this way: "Leaders will use worst-case
assessments that point to nuclear weapons to generate political support
because they know people fear nuclear weapons so much."

Even though they make semantic denials, there is no doubt that senior
administration officials were suggesting the threat from Iraq was imminent.

At a roundtable discussion with European journalists last month,
Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld insisted, "I never said imminent threat." In
fact, Secretary Rumsfeld had told the House Armed Services Committee on
September 18, 2002, " ... Some have argued that the nuclear threat from
Iraq is not imminent -- that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from
having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

In February 2003, with war only weeks away, then Deputy Press Secretary
Scott McClellan was asked why NATO allies should support Turkey's
request for military assistance against Iraq. His clear response was,
"This is about an imminent threat."

In May 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether we
went to war, "because we said WMD [weapons of mass destruction] were a
direct and imminent threat to the United States." Fleischer responded,
"Absolutely."

What else could National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have been
suggesting, other than an imminent threat -- an extremely imminent
threat -- when she said on September 8, 2002, "We don't want the smoking
gun to be a mushroom cloud."

President Bush himself may not have used the word "imminent," but he
carefully chose strong and loaded words about the nature of the threat
-- words that the intelligence community never used -- to persuade and
prepare the nation to go to war against Iraq.

In the Rose Garden on October 2, 2002, as Congress was preparing to vote
on authorizing the war, the president said the Iraqi regime "is a threat
of unique urgency."

In a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, President Bush echoed
Condoleezza Rice's image of nuclear devastation: "Facing clear evidence
of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

At a political appearance in New Mexico on October 28, 2002, after
Congress had voted to authorize war, and a week before the election,
President Bush said Iraq is a "real and dangerous threat."

At a NATO summit on November 20, 2002, President Bush said Iraq posed a
"unique and urgent threat."

In Fort Hood, Texas, on January 3, 2003, President Bush called the Iraqi
regime a "grave threat."

Nuclear weapons. Mushroom cloud. Unique and urgent threat. Real and
dangerous threat. Grave threat. This was the administration's rallying
cry for war. But those were not the words of the intelligence community.
The community recognized that Saddam was a threat, but it never
suggested the threat was imminent, or immediate, or urgent.

In his speech last month at Georgetown, CIA Director Tenet stated that,
despite attempts to acquire a nuclear capability, Saddam was many years
away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Tenet's precise words we "We
said Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, and probably would have been
unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."

The acquisition of enough nuclear material is an extremely difficult
task for a country seeking nuclear weapons. Tenet bluntly stated that
the intelligence community had "detected no such acquisition" by Saddam.
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also outlined the
disagreement in the intelligence community over whether the notorious
aluminum tubes [Iraq had tried to import] were intended for nuclear
weapons or not.

Tenet clearly distanced himself from the administration's statements
about the urgency of the threat from Iraq in his speech at Georgetown.
But he stopped short of saying the administration distorted the
intelligence or relied on other sources to make the case for war. He
said he only gave the president the CIA's daily assessment of the
intelligence, and the rest he did not know.

Tenet needs to explain to Congress and the country why he waited until
last month -- nearly a year after the war started -- to set the record
straight. Intelligence analysts had long been frustrated about the way
intelligence was being misused to justify war. In February 2003, an
official described the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence
agencies to The New York Times, saying, "I think there is also a sense
of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not
standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is obviously being
politicized."

Why wasn't CIA Director Tenet correcting the president and the vice
president and the secretary of defense a year ago, when it could have
made a difference, when it could have prevented a needless war, when it
could have saved so many lives?

It was Vice President Cheney who first laid out the trumped up argument
for war with Iraq to an unsuspecting public. In a speech on August 26,
2002, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he asserted, " ... We now know
that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. ... Many
of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly
soon." As we now know, the intelligence community was far from certain.
Yet the vice president had been convinced.

On September 8, 2002, Cheney was even more emphatic about Saddam. He
said, "[We] do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his
procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich
uranium to build a nuclear weapon." The intelligence community was
deeply divided about the aluminum tubes, but Cheney was absolutely certain.

Where was the CIA Director when the vice president was going nuclear
about Saddam going nuclear? Did Tenet fail to convince the policymakers
to cool their overheated rhetoric? Did he even try to convince them?

One month later, on the eve of the watershed vote by Congress to
authorize the war, President Bush said it even more vividly. He said,
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes ... which
are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is
able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a
little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in
less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would
be crossed ... Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear
technology to terrorists."

In fact, as we now know, the intelligence community was far from unified
on Iraq's nuclear threat. The administration attempted to conceal that
fact by classifying the information and the dissents within the
intelligence community until after the war, even while making dramatic
and excessive public statements about the immediacy of the danger.

In a February 2004 article in the Atlantic Monthly, Ken Pollack, a
former CIA analyst who supported the war, said, " ... Time after time
senior administration officials discussed only the worst case and least
likely scenario, and failed to mention the intelligence community's most
likely scenario." In a January interview, Pollack added, "Only the
administration has access to all the information available to various
agencies of the U.S. government -- and withholding or downplaying some
of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that
responsibility."

In October 2002, the intelligence agencies jointly issued a National
Intelligence Estimate stating that "most agencies" believed that Iraq
had restarted its nuclear program after inspectors left in 1998, and
that, if left unchecked, Iraq "probably will have a nuclear weapon
during this decade." The State Department's intelligence bureau,
however, said the "available evidence" was inadequate to support that
judgment. It refused to predict when "Iraq could acquire a nuclear
device or weapon."

The National Intelligence Estimate cited a foreign government report
that, as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of nuclear
material to Iraq. The estimate also said, "Reports indicate that Iraq
has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic
of the Congo." The State Department's intelligence bureau, however,
responded that claims of Iraq seeking to purchase nuclear material from
Africa were "highly dubious." The CIA sent two memos to the White House
stressing strong doubts about those claims.

But the following January, the president included the claims about
Africa in his State of the Union Address, and conspicuously cited the
British government as the source of that intelligence.

Information about nuclear weapons was not the only intelligence
distorted by the administration. On the question of whether Iraq was
pursuing a chemical weapons program, the Defense Intelligence Agency
concluded in September 2002 that "there is no reliable information on
whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where
Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production
facilities."

That same month, however, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed
Services Committee that Saddam has chemical-weapons stockpiles. He said
that "we do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction," that Saddam "has amassed large clandestine
stocks of chemical weapons," that "he has stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons," and that Iraq has "active chemical, biological and
nuclear programs." He was wrong on all counts.

Yet the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate actually quantified
the size of the stockpiles, finding that "although we have little
specific information on Iraq's CW [chemical weapon] stockpile, Saddam
probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as
500 metric tons of CW agents -- much of it added in the last year." In
his speech at the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State
[Colin] Powell went further, calling the 100-500 metric ton stockpile a
"conservative estimate."

Secretary Rumsfeld made an even more explicit assertion in his March 30,
2003, interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." When asked
about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, he said, "We know where they
are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west,
south, and north somewhat."

The second major claim in the administration's case for war was the
linkage between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Significantly here as well, the Intelligence Estimate did not find a
cooperative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. On the contrary,
it stated only that such a relationship might happen if Saddam were
"sufficiently desperate" -- in other words, if America went to war. But
the estimate placed "low confidence" that, even in desperation, Saddam
would give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda.

A year before the war began, senior al Qaeda leaders themselves had
rejected a link with Saddam. The New York Times reported last June that
a top al Qaeda planner and recruiter captured in March 2002 told his
questioners last year that "the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's
government had been discussed among al Qaeda leaders, but Osama bin
Laden had rejected such proposals." According to the Times, an al Qaeda
chief of operations had also told interrogators that the group did not
work with Saddam.

Mel Goodman, a CIA analyst for 20 years, put it bluntly: "Saddam Hussein
and bin Laden were enemies. Bin Laden considered and said that Saddam
was the socialist infidel. These were very different kinds of
individuals competing for power in their own way and Saddam Hussein made
very sure that al Qaeda couldn't function in Iraq."

In February 2003, investigators at the FBI told The New York Times they
were baffled by the administration's insistence on a solid link between
al Qaeda and Iraq. One investigator said, "We've been looking at this
hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's
there."

But President Bush was not deterred. He was relentless in using
America's fears after the devastating 9/11 tragedy. He drew a clear link
-- and drew it repeatedly -- between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

In a September 25, 2002, statement at the White House, President Bush
flatly declared, "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when
you talk about the war on terror."

In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, President Bush said,
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda," and that he could
provide "lethal viruses" to a "shadowy terrorist network."

Two weeks later, in his radio address to the nation, a month before the
war began, President Bush described the ties in detail, saying, "Saddam
Hussein has longstanding, direct, and continuing ties to terrorist
networks ... "

He said, "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at
least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and
document-forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided
al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. An al Qaeda
operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in
acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a
terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This
network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and
many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

In fact, there was no operational link and no clear and persuasive
pattern of ties between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda. That fact
should have been abundantly clear to the president. Iraq and al Qaeda
had diametrically opposing views of the world.

In the march to war, the president exaggerated the threat anyway. It was
not subtle. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated
fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American
people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to al Qaeda
justified immediate war.

Why would the administration go to such lengths to go to war? Was it
trying to change the subject from its failed economic policy, the
corporate scandals, and its failed effort to capture Osama bin Laden?
The only imminent threat was the November congressional election. The
politics of the election trumped the stubborn facts.

Early in the Bush administration, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill had
raised concerns about politics pervading the process in the White House.
Comparing the Bush administration and previous Republican
administrations, he said, referring to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and
[adviser] Karen Hughes, "The biggest difference ... is that our group
was mostly about evidence and analysis -- and Karl, Dick, Karen, and the
gang seemed to be mostly about politics."

In the late winter and early spring of 2002, in the aftermath of the
Enron and other corporate scandals, as Ron Suskind, the author of the
O'Neill book wrote, " ... Rove told numerous administration officials
that the poll data was definitive: the scandals were hurting the
president, a cloud in an otherwise blue sky for the soaring,
post-Afghanistan Bush."

The evidence so far leads to only one conclusion. What happened was not
merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and
distortion of the intelligence and selective use of unreliable
intelligence to justify a decision to go to war. The administration had
made up its mind, and would not let stubborn facts stand in the way.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a recently retired Air Force intelligence
officer who served in the Pentagon during the buildup to the war, said,
"It wasn't intelligence -- it was propaganda ... they'd take a little
bit of intelligence, cherry pick it, make it sound much more exciting,
usually by taking it out of context, usually by juxtaposition of two
pieces of information that don't belong together."

As it now appears, the Iraqi expatriates who had close ties to the
Pentagon and were so eager for the war may well have been the source of
the hyped intelligence. They have even begun to brag about it.

The Pentagon's favorite Iraqi dissident, Ahmad Chalabi, is actually
proud of what happened. "We are heroes in error," Chalabi recently said.
"As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant
Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is
not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're
ready to fall on our swords, if he wants."

Our men and women in uniform are still paying with their lives for this
misguided war in Iraq. CIA Director Tenet could perform no greater
service to the armed forces, to the American people, and to our country,
than to set the record straight, and state unequivocally what is so
clearly the truth: the Bush Administration misrepresented the facts to
justify the war.

America went to war in Iraq because President Bush insisted that nuclear
weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his ties to Al Qaeda were too
dangerous to ignore. Congress never would have voted to authorize the
war if we had known the facts.

The Bush administration is obviously digging in its heels against any
further serious investigation of the reasons we went to war. The
administration's highest priority is to prevent any more additional
stubborn facts about this fateful issue from coming to light before the
election in November.

This debate will go on anyway in Congress and in communities across the
country. The most important decision any president makes is the decision
on war or peace. No president who misleads the country on the need for
war deserves to be reelected. A president who does so must be held
accountable. The last thing our nation needs is a sign on the desk in
the Oval Office in the White House that says, "The buck doesn't stop
here anymore." Thank you very much.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 09:23:42 -0500, Jim wrote:

Snipped

Please note the following:

Newzilla.com


March 4, 2004

Negative headlines -- that's what meets the launching of the
President's ad campaign. But what's behind the headlines?

One article linked at Newzilla, comes from My Way News by way of the
AP. The headline reads, "9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads."

The news article lists four "victims' kin" and Harold Schaitberger,
president of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).

Is it less than forthcoming to leave out mention that the IAFF has
endorsed John Kerry for president? Is Mr. Harold Schaitberger, a man
who has been on the campaign trail with and for John Kerry, a
legitimate person to go to for quotes on Bush ads?

Well, how about the victims' kin? Colleen Kelly is identified as
"lead[ing] a victims families group called "Peaceful Tomorrows." The
following is the mission statement for "Peaceful Tomorrows.'"


"Peaceful Tomorrows is an advocacy organization founded by family
members of September 11th victims who have united to turn our grief
into action for peace. Our mission is to seek effective, nonviolent
solutions to terrorism, and to acknowledge our common experience with
all people similarly affected by violence throughout the world. By
conscientiously exploring peaceful options in our search for justice,
we hope to spare additional families the suffering we have
experienced—as well as to break the cycle of violence and retaliation
engendered by war. In doing so, we work to create a safer world for
the present and future generations."

If you glance at the press releases posted by this group on their web
site you will observe that they strongly opposed the Iraq War:


"September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows condemns
unconditionally the illegal, immoral, and unjustified US-led military
action in Iraq."

In fact they opposed the war enough that they've protested and have
seen members arrested for their protesting activities.

My purpose is not to judge their anti-war positions. My purpose is to
suggest that not all September 11 victims' kin are members of this
victims' kin/anti-war organization. Shouldn't the article identify
"Peaceful Tomorrows" and those actively associated with it for who
they are and what they stand for, especially when it is likely that
President George Bush is the leader of that which they oppose?

It's strange that David Potorti is identified only as "an independent
from Cary, N.C." The same web site for "Peaceful Tomorrows" identifies
Mr. Potorti as the group's Co-Director and the Eastern U.S.
Coordinator. Shouldn't the article mention that instead of calling him
"an independent from Cary, N.C.?"

Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J. seems to have a
little anti-Bush thing working. Wouldn't we all agree that this should
have been mentioned in the article?

Barbara Minervino, a Republican from Middletown, N.J., seems to be
innocuous enough of a quote -- except to note that she said "keeping
speeches out of the anniversary remembrances was a good idea." She
believes "silence is best."

The New York Daily News story headline reads, "Furor over Bush's 9/11
ad" and also has four victims' kin and one firefighter quoted.

I can't come up with any information on firefighter Tommy Fee ... IAFF
may be all the more we need to know, but, who knows.

Tom Roger is identified as the father of "a flight attendant on doomed
American Airlines Flight 11". What the article does not mention is
that he also serves on the board of "Families of September 11", an
organization seeking to "promote the interests of the victims'
families" - and - "support public policies that improve the prevention
of and response to terrorism." That's all fair, but if one peruses the
internet it is also quite easy to find anti-Bush links related to this
group. Shouldn't that be noted?

Monica Gabrielle is one of the kin. It is not mentioned that she is
associated with the "Skyscraper Safety Campaign" and that they have at
least some association with "Families of September 11". And, from
another source:


"Monica Gabrielle spends a lot of time in her New York City apartment
on the Internet, looking for answers, and she spends a lot of time
with her lawyer looking for the guilty. But most of all, Gabrielle
spends a lot of time just being angry. Her childhood sweetheart and
husband of 28 years, Rich, was killed at the World Trade Center on
9/11, and she thinks terrorists aren't the only ones to blame."

Mindy Kleinberg is one of many victims' kin that questions the role of
the government and President Bush. Kleinberg and the aforementioned
Kristen Breitweiser have their connections as well.

Jennie Farrell, who is a member of another group concerned with 9/11
victims' families, "Give Your Voice", had no problem with the ad.

This observer has no problem with victims' kin groups or protesting
the war. I won't always agree with their positions, but it certainly
is the American way to fight for what one believes.

This observer does have problem with the misrepresentations of the
folks in the stories. One would get the impression that the reporters
simply called a few victims' kin and asked them how they felt about
the ad. When we look a little closer, it looks like the reporters
should have known that there were some disclaimers needed in their
stories.



March 3, 2004

There ... that's done. Now that the Democrats have all but officially
nominated the political equivalent of Bob Newhart to challenge the
hated George W. Bush, only one task remains. How do they rig the
November election so that the irrelevant John Kerry can win the
irrelevant popular vote? Seriously, regardless the prattle served up
by MSNBC's impartial trio of Matthews-Russert-Brokaw (?-?-?), the only
chance Kerry has to unseat the President is to cheat.

The guess here is that reality has not yet set in. Fresh off his heady
defeat of such political stalwarts as John Edwards, Al Sharpton, and
Dennis Kucinich, and handily coping with tough questions from the
media like, 'Senator, what's it like to be a bona fide war hero?', who
could expect John Kerry to have paused at the mirror? But soon he will
see that he is all alone now, unless you count Reverend Al and his
platform-shaping delegate(s). The only Democratic debate for months
will be the John Kerry of Kerry's dreams versus the John Kerry of
Kerry's reality. It may take Kerry awhile to figure it out, but
Americans will fast discover that this isn't much of a choice. The
dream is a nightmare and the reality, once we move past Vietnam, is
nothing more and nothing less than a droning liberal mantra deserving
of the ranking as the United States' most liberal senator. One
imagines President Bush is giddy that he has been invited to "bring it
on" mano a mano with the Brahmin Bull. [There is a story circulating
that the President is concerned about John Kerry -- he told the likes
of NBC's David Gregory as much in a private meeting. So, what do you
think? Did the President give a select group of reporters a revealing
insight into his fears, or did he give them exactly what he wanted
them to get? Gaarsh, I just don't know.]

Today, the media is abuzz over who it is that Kerry might select as
his running mate. I'm wondering if those considered 'possible' haven't
already sent Kerry a telegram telling him what he can do with his
consideration of them -- "Stop. Stop." Can anyone imagine a faster way
to phase oneself out of a legitimate political career than to be part
of Kerry's presidential ticket? This is why the most likely candidates
to join Senator John Kerry's ticket are those that have already given
up on their careers ... Missouri's Dick Gephardt or Florida's Bob
Graham. Kerry-Gephardt, Kerry-Graham ... Yikes-Yikes (?-?).

Last night when John Edwards was still pretending that "you and I" (as
in his supporters and he) would be in the race to the bitter end, he
mentioned that it wasn't too long ago no one thought anyone named
"John" would still be in the race for the Democratic Party
presidential nomination. Evidently not too long ago people had
properly assessed the relevance of both his and the Kerry campaigns.

But in typical left-of-the-aisle fashion, rational thinking regarding
Kerry's relevance started slipping out the door the day Howard Dean's
campaign moved into implosion mode. I often hear conservative radio
pundits mock people for watching MSNBC -- and mostly I agree (except
for Joe Scarborough's show). But on a night like "Super Tuesday",
MSNBC is the place to be. I love watching Democrats defend Democrats.
Could the aforementioned Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw
possibly be more partisan in their rooting for Kerry? I especially
enjoy watching them give each other elitist knowing looks as if to say
Kerry is hot when everyone knows Kerry leaves all three of them colder
than cold. Something tells me the best humor on TV all summer long
will be watching Chris Matthews' "Hardball" program as he desperately
tries to keep Kerry afloat.

And frankly, that's Kerry's only hope. He is going to need every last
member of the liberal media to ballyhoo his chances. The only other
option is to flood the market with negative stories on President Bush.
How much of that will pass by before Americans have had enough?

I say not much which is why I send out this short note reminding you
of your civic duties. You must notify Homeland Security at once if you
observe anti-American extremists or TV news guys wearing jackass lapel
pins suspiciously loitering around your local polling place. I'm
telling you, Kerry's only chance in November is if he cheats.



March 2, 2004

Evidently we have just a few choices available that might solve the
nation's Social Security woes:
- Raise the age for eligibility
- Reduce the benefits
- Stop all medical advances now
- Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes

Smart guys like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and soon-to-be
Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry know what they'd
do. They'd raise taxes on all of the nation's filthy rich. According
to John Kerry, raising taxes would be the conservative response to the
nation's economic matters (Milton Friedman ... do you agree?).

It's so obvious to the smart guys that Americans aren't able to
comprehend that we're living longer ... lots longer than was imagined,
or at least longer than was the reality when Social Security was
implemented. So, seeing as we just can't comprehend that, why not do
something we can comprehend -- let's tax the bejeepers out of anyone
that might actually be in a position to invest in American business
(thereby creating jobs). And then when the evil filthy rich no longer
have money left to invest in America, when no new jobs are created, as
companies go bust, we can just bump the taxes up on those few
Americans that are still working -- that's the way to pay for Social
Security, right? Maybe at some point down the road, we can just
forward our entire paycheck directly to the government and men can
huddle around a fire burning in a 55-gallon drum awaiting their wife's
return from the state-run store with their weekly ration of flour and
lard. Sound good?

Comrades, there is another solution. It's the one you and I use every
time we need to set aside for our personal future plans. Save. That's
right, the government could save. How would they do that? How about
cut spending? How about that idea comrades -- do you suppose if we
didn't try to collectivize everything we might actually be able to
collectively afford Social Security and Medicare?

Well, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is urging cuts in
federal government spending. But, he's enough of a historian to
realize how unlikely it is our politicians and governmental
bureaucrats will cut anything meaningful from the budget.

The fact that it is unlikely does not mean that it could not be done.
Spending cuts must be found and not just in so-called 'discretionary'
spending. The government needs to make across the board cuts in their
inefficient delivery of services.

Mr. Greenspan did precisely what we hired him to do -- deliver the
message. Let's not kill the messenger -- let's kill spending bills.
Greenspan's message was yet another wake-up call -- the truth is that
everyone knows we've been hitting the snooze bar for years. We better
get up and get going before it's too late.



February 29, 2004

Anna Quindlen is right to be offended by an argument "that only
conservatives [know] God." But, who is it that she is wailing away at
in her newest article? Does this argument come from another one of
those important groups that is comprised of but 0.002% of all
Americans?

In pinpointing what certainly would be a preposterous position and
suggesting that it is an actual pin that pricks, she believes she has
set the stage so that she can make claims -- she can nobly show that
faithful liberals and Democratic politicians are all about "actions,
not words." She can state that Democratic politicians are loathe to
laud their views over the rest of us. And she seeks to build an
understanding for her squirming in the presence of anyone willing to
publicly speak of God and prayer. Methinks she has attempted to turn
her 0.002% group into the whole of those Republicans unafraid to speak
of their faith. It's a weak and transparent web she weaves ... that
spider can't hunt.

Anna can rest easy, there is no vast right wing conspiracy to bar
liberals from passing through the pearly gates. The good news is that
instead of railing against imaginary foes, there is ample time left
for Anna to learn about the separation of church and state.

She writes about the "obligation of individuals and institutions to
help those who needed help." The last thing any of us need,
conservative or liberal, is for the government to mandate our charity.
Conservatives and liberals struggle at anything resembling consensus
in this regard, but nothing I ever learned from my faith spoke of
enforced charity. Our politicians might show more faith in their
fellow Americans -- we'll give what we can when we can. We'll give
much less when the government takes so much through their
redistribution plans at the start.

And speaking of charity, Miss Quindlen rudely reduces Mel Gibson's
artistic expression ("The Passion of the Christ") to "trading on God
for personal gain" -- ahem, what's that I see in your eye there Miss
Quindlen? I'm supposing that at a minimum, payment received for your
latest column will be donated to a worthy cause? [See Newzilla's
applauding review of Gibson's movie below.]

Always be on the lookout for those attempting to divide us -- Miss
Quindlen's attempt was spirited but in the end does us all an
injustice.



February 28, 2004

"The Passion of the Christ" is POWERFUL. It is a movie dedicated to
showing God's love through his only son's commitment to his father and
to mankind. As the dust settles, after the intellectual naysayers
grasp that no one is listening to their clever criticisms, Mel Gibson
and his colleagues will receive well-deserved ovations. Perhaps the
intellectuals have already been sent to their corners -- I'm standing
and I think most in the audience are standing with me.

Those concerned about anti-Semitism either have not seen the movie or
else arrived at the theater predisposed to see it. The focus of this
movie, in spite of the violence, actually, because of the violence, is
on God's love as seen through Jesus's sacrifice for us. Yes the movie
is violent -- indeed, many will avert their eyes from time to time --
and no, children should not see this movie. But know this -- the
violence was not used to blame or merely to shock; it provided a
riveting visual as to the depth of Jesus's sacrifice.

The use of Aramaic with subtitles was a brilliant way to prevent the
intonations of the spoken word from stealing anything from the
powerful visual story.

Finally, pay no attention to those critics that complain about what
the movie isn't or what it could have been. "The Passion of the
Christ" is precisely what it was intended to be -- powerful and
influencing. Someone else can make the movie the critics wanted.
Gibson's movie is well more than anyone else has ever offered -- it is
stunning and an absolute must see.

Bravo. Encore.



February 26, 2004

"But ... but ... but what about the kids?"

There ... I finally spit it out. I confess -- more often than not it
is my impression that "the kids" are injected into issues mostly in
attempt to slander the opposition.

Well then, am I slandering the premise of legalized same-sex marriage
by asserting that its legalization will indeed change our children and
their world forever more?

Who among us has a definitive study at the ready to prove otherwise?
Who among us knows with certitude that our children will not be
influenced, or, in what manner they might be influenced by legalized
same-sex marriage? If our culture legalizes same-sex marriage, will we
not be teaching our children that our culture accepts homosexuality as
the equal of heterosexuality? Assuming that to be the case, is there
reason to believe that our children will resist that notion? Have you
ever known of any parent that hoped, on the day their newborn arrived,
that some day their child would indeed live a homosexual lifestyle? Is
it discriminatory to acknowledge the truth regarding the last
question?

Regardless your own desire for America as it pertains to same-sex
marriage, don't you believe that every effort should be made to
determine the effects of any major cultural change on our nation's
children? It strikes me as particularly odd that I hear almost no one
asking about "the kids" during these days of enormous challenge to our
culture's traditional sexual mores.

It is understandable that a majority of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and
transgenders (GLBT) would have us believe their sexual preference is
genetics-based. If their lifestyle is driven by genetics, it shuts
down all judgment. You can search the net all day and you will not
find any reputable organization laying claim that homosexuality is
genetics-based. You will find viewpoints that sexual preference is a
learned behavior -- some would argue at an early age and that once
learned it is almost irreversible. Does anyone really know?

Probably not.

But let's examine an interesting phenomenon ... the reaction to the
movie "The Passion of the Christ", an R-rated movie by Mel Gibson.
Today a vaunted Democratic Party presidential candidate, Senator John
F. Kerry, weighed in ...


"Kerry, a Catholic, said he was worried about the movie's potential
anti-Semitism. Some critics have complained that Gibson portrays Jews
as responsible for Jesus' death.

"I am concerned," he told reporters. "I don't know if it's
[anti-Semitism] there or not but there's a lot of it around now. I
think we have to be careful."

Let's take the Senator at his word. Of what do we have to be careful?
Clearly his words say that he has concern that adults watching a movie
just once might become so fraught with emotion that anti-Semitic
sentiments will be spawned or ripened and then unleashed in some sort
of regrettable action.

Well, the point is not really whether or not I agree with the Senator
on "The Passion". I do not. Some small percentage of adults that have
long been anti-Semitic might use the movie as an excuse to act out --
but that's all it would be, their excuse du jour. The point is that we
all know the Senator is not alone in his concern. Many others, it
seems most of the media and some Jews, are scared silly by the
possibilities of anti-Semitic outbursts from a single viewing of
Gibson's movie. Intellectual elites are very clearly expressing
concern that adults might be influenced to discriminatory action
merely by watching this movie.

Hmm. But what about the kids?

Where is the concern for what children may learn from the cultural
sea-change that is sure to come with the legalization of same-sex
marriage? How come I hear nothing about the children? Our young
children are voracious learners. We teach, teach, teach and they
learn, learn, learn. They learn sweetly, without doubts - see Santa
Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, Mickey Mouse ... you name
it, they learn and they believe. Certainly when we teach them that
same-sex marriage is the equal to traditional marriage (marriage
between one man and one woman for those that have forgotten), they
will accept that as truth. When they watch their movies (and any
parent knows they don't watch them but once - they love repetition),
will they watch two men hugging and kissing? Will they watch two women
embracing and falling in love? The answer is yes, of course they will.
Will they learn that same-sex relationships and homosexuality are
culturally accepted and approved lifestyles? The answer is yes, of
course they will. It's bizarre that some worry adults might take
action from viewing a movie once but I hear no one concerned that
tomorrow's children will respond differently to homosexuality than
today's children do, if for no other reason than constant exposure.

Is that what you want? Does anyone care that a lifetime of exposure is
almost certain to result in attitudinal responses quite different from
what their parents experienced, quite different from what their
parents wished for their children? Maybe some parents truly do not
care. I feel safe to say that the vast majority do care and that it
was never their hope that some day, due to relaxed attitudes, their
children might explore their own sexuality in ways most would never
consider today.

When I read or hear over and over "why the fuss over same-sex
marriage?", I am stunned at the selfishness of that position. I see no
concern for anything other than the wishes of adults who have chosen
to live a same-sex lifestyle. Before we decide what our nation's
culture will be like long after we're gone, shouldn't we just this
once ask ...

"But what about the kids?"



February 24, 2004

"Thank Goodness it's not true. John Kerry and the intern, I mean.

Now I can say it." ~ Susan Estrich

I read that opening to her column, was bugged by it, walked away from
it, but somehow knew I'd come back to it.

Et tu, Sute!

It's the "Now I can say it" part that eats at me -- five little words
that say so much. Susan 'Sute' Estrich, who I generally find so
likeable, might just as well have written five other words -- "I would
have betrayed you."

Sure, I understand bias. I'm biased. I'm conservative and make no
attempt to conceal it -- in fact, I suppose I sort of flaunt it.
However, in spite of my favored view of most things political, I
cannot comprehend withholding an important truth or covering things up
because I so desperately want one of my own to win. I cannot imagine
trying to pass off news of an affair by one of 'my guys' as much ado
about nothing. Perhaps Miss Estrich would not have gone that route --
but those five little words make me wonder if indeed she would have
looked away from a serious John Kerry indiscretion -- if she would
have written an explanation she didn't really, really mean -- if she
would have appeared on a news program and rolled her eyes when the
indiscretion was broached as if to say that the Kerry issue was a
whole lot of nothing ... even when deep down inside she thought it was
really something something.

My focus isn't really meant to be on Susan Estrich. In truth, as I've
written before, I like her and find her far less guilty of betraying
the public than most in her camp. For me, it is the Terry McAuliffe,
Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, and Patrick Leahy type of
Democrats, and it is the Joe Conason, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Paul
Begala, and Bill Schneider pundit-types that bother me. And they're
not alone. I continue to be astonished at the enormity of the leftist
crowd ever willing to step up to the plate whenever the masters from
on high call upon them. One might imagine a master email list --
whenever it is needed, a communiqué is dispatched with all the talking
points delineated - 'here's our excuse" - 'say you saw him in Chicago
dressed up as a kangaroo' - 'remind everyone of the time Abraham
Lincoln did the same thing' - 'point out that George Bush was seen
there in 1970' -- I think any regular observer knows what I'm talking
about. It doesn't matter how false, how painfully absurd the story,
one after the other after the other after the other, our friends on
the left are willing to come out and distort the truth to Americans in
order to achieve their goal.

Yes, I call that betrayal.

Don't these people have spouses, friends, staff, gas station
attendants, someone, anyone willing to look them in the eye and
challenge them on their devious, deceitful ways? John Kerry calls his
compadres a "band of brothers". Those on the left that are so willing
to steal our favor and our votes by blatantly lying to us are more a
"band of thieves". They're all winking at one another as they try to
pull the wool over our eyes.

It is imperative that all of us Americans, regardless our political
persuasion, name those so willing to betray all the rest of us.

"Et tu!" -- Make sure it's not you!



February 22, 2004

You'll pardon the President if he mistakes the now public letter from
Senator John Kerry as just another piece of junk mail -- junk, trash,
what's the difference.

In his letter to the President, Kerry wrote, "you and your campaign
have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my
decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the
defense of this nation ... I will not sit back and allow my patriotism
to be challenged."

- Widespread attack on Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam
The entire world, the President excepted, has needled Senator Kerry
that his service in Vietnam seems always to be on the tip of his
tongue. But no one remotely close to the President and his campaign
has ever made any disparaging remark pertaining to Kerry's military
service. Senator, prove it or lose it, as in drop the absurd and
trashy accusation.

- His decision to speak out to end that war
It is a matter of record that the Senator decided as a young man to
vehemently protest the Vietnam War. He authored a book on the subject,
he rallied those to his view and he spoke with great personal passion
before the U.S. Senate Committee of Foreign Relations. In his comments
he most assuredly did accuse the United States, its officers and its
troops in the field of purposely and knowingly committing war crimes.
A great many people, including Vietnam veterans, believe the
27-year-old Kerry crossed an 'uncrossable' line during his protesting
days.

How could it be termed an attack to merely point out what Senator
Kerry did, what he said, and to take umbrage with his actions and
remarks? The wannabe Democratic Party presidential candidate is
singing a tune similar to the Dixie Chicks in that an inability to
escape from the reality of his record leaves him no choice but to cry
foul when someone brings it up. He did what he did, he said what he
said -- he is not being attacked by anyone when they address his past.
The Senator's complaint is pure trash.

As an aside, while our freedom of speech is wisely guaranteed by the
First Amendment of the United State Constitution, and while one's
right to protest is therein protected, this observer will strongly
suggest that 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda's and young John Kerry's protests of
the United States' military actions in Vietnam worked to empower the
Viet Cong which ultimately led to a loss of American lives. Equally,
the Dixie Chicks' and Senator John Kerry's protest of the Iraq War
also added to the dangers for our American troops bravely deployed in
Iraq. It is quite clear today that Saddam Hussein never really
believed the United States would attack. Considering the U.S. had
attacked him two times prior, his beliefs have been difficult for any
to comprehend. Could lives have been spared, could Saddam still be in
power? Absolutely on both counts had Saddam simply complied with the
unwavering and strong message delivered by President George Bush. It
seems altogether likely that Saddam listened to the wrong voices.

- Kerry's commitments to the defense of the nation
I have no urge to go back and investigate Senator Kerry's voting
record on defense matters but many reputable folks have done just
that: GOP, On the Issues

It is obvious that an examination of and discussion of John Kerry's
past voting record is our best measuring tool of the Senator's
commitment to the defense of our nation. The complaint he voiced in
his letter to the President makes me wonder what will he do if he
manages to get past Senator John Edwards, earns the Democratic Party's
presidential nomination, and is a participant in presidential debates.
We always hear moderators mention that the candidates agreed to the
terms of the debate. Will Kerry insist that there can be no discussion
of his voting record?

But more incredibly, there is never a day that passes by that Senator
Kerry doesn't assail the President for his decisions and policies,
defense oriented or otherwise. He even criticized the President for
visiting NASCAR's Daytona 500. Why would he expect different
treatment?

- Hmm
Certainly Senator Kerry and legions of Democrats and liberal pundits
have assaulted the President regarding his National Guard service
record -- no one can deny that. Just today on CBS's "Face the Nation",
DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe continued to assert that President Bush was
AWOL from duty. RNC Chair Ed Gillespie made the seriousness of the
charges clear by identifying being AWOL as a felony and then asked
McAuliffe if he still stood by his accusation -- Surprise (NOT) --
McAuliffe stood by his charge.

- It should be noted that since the heat was turned up by internet
sites regarding Senator Kerry's Vietnam protest activities, he has
chosen to drop his challenges to the President regarding his National
Guard record.
- It should also be noted that the President never called on Senator
Kerry to explain his protest of Vietnam.
- It should also be noted that Mr. McAuliffe said on "Face the Nation"
(when asked if he would heed Kerry's wish that the National Guard
issue be dropped) that Kerry is not the Democratic Party presidential
nominee, Edwards is still campaigning, and that he, McAuliffe, doesn't
answer to Kerry. That went without saying, everyone knows Mr.
McAuliffe answers only to the Clintons.
- By the way, if you have opportunity to see a rerun of today's "Face
the Nation" or to read the transcript once posted, the Q&A with Mr.
McAuliffe (DNC) and Ed Gillespie (RNC) just might be all you'll ever
need to decide which major political party to support.



February 20, 2004

The whole nation, maybe even the world, is watching San Francisco
because city officials led by their nut job of a mayor are issuing
illegal marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Oh, believe me, I know it is their wish to be called gays and lesbians
but the only reason they're called gays and lesbians (as opposed to
homosexual men and women) is because they don't want heterosexuals to
remember that they prefer to have sex with people of the same gender.

Well, as of this morning about 3,000 homosexual couples have been
illegally married in San Francisco. I'm assuming that translates to
6,000 homosexual individuals -- at least now during this first phase
of non-heterosexual marriage licensing -- I imagine the group marriage
thing will follow in a couple of years. At any rate, the population of
the United States is nearing 300 million. That means the 6,000
homosexuals illegally married during the past week make up 0.002% of
our total population. The city of San Francisco is suing the state of
California to force them to recognize the illegally issued licenses as
legal. So, Californians, and by extension, Americans, are supposed to
vacate our history of traditional marriage because the statistical
equivalent of zero wants us to recognize their illegal marriages as
legal. That's just nuts.

Frankly, this has become the American way. Someone somewhere doesn't
want the home team to be called the "Nut-Jobs" because they personally
happen to be a nut job, so, the overly-empathetic community council
decides the team can no longer be called the "Nut-Jobs" much to the
chagrin of 99.998% of the townspeople that root for the "Nut-Jobs" and
still want them to be called the "Nut-Jobs". That's just nuts.

Then we turn on the TV to watch a little shouting match on the topic
and that's what we get. Somehow "Hannity & Colmes" (for illustrative
purposes only -- to my best knowledge, neither Hannity nor Colmes have
ever discussed "Nut-Jobs" or nut jobs -- I don't know why) find a
person willing to represent the nut job position and another person
that doesn't believe the team name of "Nut-Jobs" is discriminatory. By
the time you turn the TV off you're no longer sure if you're all alone
or at best, part of a crowd of 50% -- half for the nut jobs or half
for the "Nut-Jobs". Why? Because somehow the loud debate doesn't make
it clear that there is actually a 0.002% to 99.998% disparity in the
nut job vs. "Nut-Jobs" issue. Shows like Hannity & Colmes (used for
illustrative purposes only) actually misinform us by staging debates
between one extremist nut job and another mainstream person as if they
hold equally supported positions. That's just nuts.

The point is that we live in the "have it your way" era. So, every day
we hear about one more group of nut jobs that wants "it" their way,
and, of course, they have set out to have "it" their way. There is
always another group of nut jobs (Democrats - NOT used for
illustrative purposes - I stand behind my position that Democrats are
99.998% nut jobs and they support 99.998% of every extremist nut job
position that comes along) willing to help them have "it" their way --
so long as they'll vote for them and donate to their campaigns. The
rest of us are nut jobs of a different variety because we don't figure
out ways to stop the extremist nut jobs generally supported by
Democrat nut jobs from forcing us mainstream nut jobs to change stuff
from the way we like "it" to a way we don't like "it". That's just
nuts.

Well, nuts as it may be, we have no choice now but to sit back and
wait for one activist judge or another to make a ruling that favors
legalizing homosexual marriage which will then force the President to
lead everyone in the Senate and the House actually serious about
getting reelected in passing a U.S. Constitutional amendment making it
unconstitutional for non-heterosexuals to get married anywhere in the
United States, and, all of that will probably cost about a billion
dollars. That's just nuts ... isn't it?



February 15, 2004

Roger Simon, a masterful syndicated columnist, said one of the most
inane things I've heard during this most politically-inane week.
Participating as part of the Meet the Press panel, he voiced his
surprise that the President Bush-National Guard story has had so much
traction this past week. Further, he surmised that the reason it did
is because it's a sign of the President's weakness at this time.

Mr. Simon, where does the "traction" come from? Who is forcing this to
be a story? Are the American people marching in the streets chanting
"Mr. President, even though you've freely released all of your records
just as you said you would, we still don't believe you and admittedly,
we haven't really got any sound reason for that, it's just that it
would benefit us if somehow we could prove that you've lied about your
record." ???

First off, they'd have to march a long, long time in order to get that
chant out twice. The obvious answer is that the people are not
marching -- the majority of Americans see this National Guard business
for exactly what it is ... tripe (and no, we're not impressed here by
anyone's trumped up polls regarding this matter -- Americans simply
are not that stupid).

The "traction" (media attention) that surprises Simon comes not from
the people but from the press, the Democratic candidates and their
supporters. Mr. Simon fully well knows that, Mr. Tim Russert, the host
of Meet the Press, fully well knows that, and the American public
knows that as well. Simon and Russert are keenly aware that this ugly
and transparent smear campaign on President Bush's National Guard
record is nothing more than a weak attempt by the Democratic
candidates, their supporters and the media to level the national
security playing field.

If Americans look over Senator John Kerry's voting record and find him
to be a credible pillar of national defense to lean against, this
observer will be stunned ... and scared. John Kerry's record is
dismal. No amount of botox can erase the ugly issues the nation would
have faced in the war on terror had Kerry's votes ruled the day.

Perhaps Tim Russert offered the most telling commentary of his entire
show as he closed the panel segment. He observed that the presidential
race is proving to be very close and he giddily noted that all the
panelists were smiling. I suspect it won't be long before both Senator
Kerry and President Bush wipe that smile from Russert's face -- Kerry
by being Kerry and Bush by being the exceptional leader most Americans
believe him to be. Enjoy your tight race while it lasts, Mr. Russert -
your candidate is about to run out of traction.



February 14, 2004

Well, it's pretty obvious the next nine months will be politically
disagreeable. One can safely assume there will be no compromising in
Congress other than an unspoken compromise to not agree on anything
until after the election. I would like to ask all parties to agree to
just one simple little truth. Could everyone just agree that most
every elected official and their staffs and most everyone in the media
covering them are or soon will be acting like idiots?

I think I first learned about the nature of politics as a kid watching
The Three Stooges on the old black and white TV. You'll recall that
Larry, Curley and Moe ultimately found a way to collaborate but not
until after they knocked each other around for the better part of the
show.

Well, that's all that's going on in Washington D.C. these days, it's
just that this cast of idiots is larger than a mere three. Perhaps the
most idiotic aspect to all of this is that you and I will pay big tax
dollars to support these idiots while they horse around all year long
.... yuk, yuk, yuk.

You'll remember that when we were kids we had to learn to suspend
reality when we watched the 'Stooges' or other programs of that ilk.
Now that we're adults we must remember that lesson as we watch 2004
politics. The interminable Democratic Party primary season should have
offered us time enough to sharpen our skills. We heard standard
phrases over and over. We must not believe the words of anyone who is
"outraged", "mad as hell", "sick and tired", or "the author" or "the
leader" of anything. When someone says "I'm positive, he's negative",
I'm positive he's negative and you should be too.

So far, most of the knee-slapping hijinks we've been treated to have
been the far-reaching, reality-suspending attempts to create doubts
over the past and the present of all other candidates and anyone
associated with them. What Americans are interested in is the future.
One assumes there are only so many past and present matters that can
be distorted beyond recognition. So, once our 'Stooges' tire of that,
they may actually provide Americans with information that will help us
decide how we'll vote.

Soon the parties will write and publish their policy planks -- the way
things are going so far, they'll hit each other over the head with
them. It looks like the best political advice for election year 2004
is "look out". As for me, indeed I will keep a sharp look out for
those politicians and those in the media that truly do look like a
"wise guy, huh!"



February 13, 2004

Go ahead, try to pat the top of your head and rub your tummy at the
same time. Can't do it? Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?
You can't do that either? Hmm. Well, if you listen to the media and to
many public figures these days, you're not alone. From what I read and
hear, evidently the Bush Administration can't do more than one thing
at a time either.

The latest indication of this can be seen in the comments from David
Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector:


The Bush administration is hampering efforts to improve intelligence
by clinging to the false hope that weapons of mass destruction may be
found in Iraq, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector said Thursday.
"My only serious regret about the continued holding on to the hope
that eventually we'll find it is that it eventually allows you to
avoid the hard steps necessary to reform the process," David Kay said
in an interview with The Associated Press

Link


One gets the impression from Kay's remarks that President Bush and the
CIA's George Tenet won't even consider ways to improve intelligence
gathering and analysis until the last grain of desert sand has been
turned over in search of WMD's. Perhaps they're on an intel holiday
over at the CIA -- no work allowed until our inspection team is done
looking for WMD. Just look at their web site -- sheesh, who do they
think they're fooling with all of those links and tabs and
information? We all know that nothing is going on at the CIA until the
inspectors stop looking and until the President admits there are no
WMD's in Iraq, right?

You know this all too convenient line of reasoning, it fits in neatly
with the concerns of all those that plaintively voice their fears that
President Bush is focusing on Iraq so greatly that nothing is being
done to find Osama bin Laden or to properly attend to al Qaeda and the
war on terror. But then they mention that we should be focused on Iran
and North Korea instead of Iraq. That's when I get really confused --
how on earth could they expect Bush to think about both Iran and North
Korea at the same darned time?

In further addressing the administration, Mr. Kay said, "I suspect if
I had their jobs I'd probably, to keep my sanity, be an eternal
optimist about some things." Well, Mr. Kay doesn't have their jobs --
in fact, he resigned his own. This observer believes it is now time
for Mr. Kay to do just one thing ... be quiet. Just because it's a
free country replete with free speech doesn't mean one need overdo it.

Have you ever noticed how hard it is for old inspectors to recognize
when their fifteen minutes of fame are over. You'd have to think of
both David Kay and Hans Blix at the same time ... can you do it?



February 12, 2004

Mr. Matt Drudge is at it again. This time he is breaking a story
regarding Senator John F. Kerry and the investigations by numerous
news sources into said story.

I confess to being more than a little confused and more than a little
skeptical.

General Wesley Clark is included in the Drudge report -- "In an
off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week,
General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an
intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the
startling comments.]"

Doesn't one wonder why General Clark would drop out of the race and
then come out in support of Senator Kerry at the very same time he is
voicing that Kerry would "implode over an intern issue?"

I also observe that this story is not yet posted on any sites other
than the ones I have posted on Newzilla's front page. We all can
safely guess that this will be THE topic of the night on all of the
cable news shows -- why would no one be willing to so much as post an
observation that Drudge has posted a Kerry rumor?

Frankly, I hope the story as reported by Drudge is not true -- the
Democrats deserve better than that at this stage of the race. Well,
that's it - just a short note to report that I am skeptical until more
is known.



February 10, 2004

Just a few questions and observations:

- If you have not yet checked out the Dennis Miller show on CNBC (9PM
ET) I suggest you give it a chance. His conversations with folks are
one-on-one and are probing but not purposely contentious or non-stop
interrupting ala Chris Matthews ("Hardball"). His panel ("The Varsity
Panel") is permitted to get into a topic with greater depth and
without all the interruptions ala Hannity & Colmes. And frankly, his
take is refreshing even though I disagree with him more than
occasionally. He has the courage to stand up for what he believes
without reducing it to repetitive prattle.

- If Susan Estrich and U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, (somehow) had a
son, would he more sound like Andy Devine or his his pal Froggy?

- Speaking of Andy Devine and Froggy, what would the FCC say had
Justin Timberlake lip-synched, "Janet, plunk your Magic Twanger?"

- Lacking hard proof, will John Kerry's decision to paint President
Bush as service-dodging and inexperienced more hurt the President or
the antiwar activist Kerry?

- Anna Nicole Smith was on the Larry King Show last night. I couldn't
pull myself away from cleaning the cat's litter box to watch ... did
he find out if she knows where the WMD is? Honestly ... what's the
point?

- Howard Dean says that "his decision-making style is to let ideas
incubate unconsciously for a long time." That explains an awful lot,
doesn't it?

- Where is the international 'legal response' to Pakistani Dr. Khan's
illicit transfer of nuke technology? Let's see - ignore Saddam for 17
resolutions, let Dr. Khan keep his loot, label George Bush and Tony
Blair as war criminals ... oh, yeah, I'm with Kerry - let's globalize,
yeah, that's the ticket - global, global, global.

- New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes every column
criticizing George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld,
Antonin Scalia, Karl Rove or all of them. Every column is the same in
that every column is baseless and just silly. Maureen is credited for
a quote - perhaps she first said it to someone that fawned over one of
her columns - "The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you
get even less than you settled for."

- In passing, I saw a few seconds of Chris Matthews speaking with Tim
Russert about the "Meet the Press" interview. These two guys are both
smart -- do they really believe that the 2004 presidential race is
going to be tight, nip and tuck? Obviously a lot can happen over the
course of nine months - and this observer thinks candidate Kerry will
run into lots more issues than will President Bush. We're looking at a
double-digit win for the President.

- I've been noticing "Kerry-Bush" in headlines and articles. By either
standard, incumbency or alphabetizing, should that not always be
"Bush-Kerry"?



February 8, 2004

Well, the invitation must have sounded something like, "Mr. President,
how would you like to come on "Meet the Press" for an opportunity to
explain yourself?"

The wrong answer was given.

There was no reason - there is no reason for President Bush to go
before the American public and explain himself.

The largely irrelevant field of Democratic presidential candidates has
been provided 24/7 free advertising by the media. They have mostly
used that free gift to conduct a non-stop, conspiracy theory riddled,
mudslinging Bush-bashing. The President could not possibly overcome
any of that in an hour-long interview responding to "Meet the Press"
host Tim Russert's questions. The best way, probably the only way, to
overcome all of that noise is and was to simply ignore it and watch it
all go away by itself.

About two weeks ago it was written here that President Bush and his
administration have shown great wisdom in staying above the fray and
mostly by simply not engaging in it throughout his first term. A
couple of days later I confessed here that much to my surprise the
administration was running all over the place in an attempt to explain
themselves in response to the charges coming from all corners -- Iraq
intel and the validity of the war, the economy, temp worker proposals,
etc. Obviously the administration-explaining failed -- not so much for
what they said but for the spin of the press, pundits and politicians
after the fact. Their failure to explain themselves satisfactorily to
folks that are only looking to be dissatisfied, dismissive, and
demeaning is something that required only low-grade intel analysis --
they would fail in their mission and they did.

Now, had the poorly choreographed explanations of all the
administration-types never even occurred, then it may have been a
reasonable idea for the President to go on "Meet the Press." But only
maybe. Russert is not the leader of the glee club for anybody
(possible exception - Senator Hillary Clinton - too much happy-happy
for this observer), his questions are all intended to challenge
decisions, statements, and policies. The following is the listing of
question topics posted on the "Meet the Press" site attendant to the
President's interview:


• Intelligence Commission
• Director of the CIA George Tenet
• 9/11 Commission
• Osama bin Laden
• Weapons of mass destruction
• Saddam as a threat
• Future preemptive strikes
• Resistance in Iraq
• Nation-building
• United Nations in Iraq
• Death and injury toll in Iraq
• Iraq as a War of Choice or Necessity
• President’s National Guard service
• Bush-Cheney economic record
• Future tax cuts
• Uniter vs. divider
• Sen. John Kerry
• Skull and Bones society
• Losing the election
• Biggest campaign issues

There is nothing wrong with the President addressing those topics, but
if I was his advisor he would have been advised to do so on his own
timetable, not in a regulated sit-down across from Tim Russert who
believes correctly that it is his job to push his interview subject up
against the wall. The President had no reason to submit himself to
this exercise.

So, what Russert does is what he did -- he circled around the same
issues over and over and over again as if President Bush had not
answered the question already. This tactic pushed the President into
the position of attending to the same topics over and over, again and
again. And that builds the impression that the President is responding
defensively as in defending that which is indefensible -- otherwise,
why would there be so many questions, why would there be so many loose
ends, why would his answers not be registering with Russert as
satisfactory answers? Why would anyone subject themselves to that
needlessly?

Perhaps there were some Americans that heard something from President
Bush in this interview that they did not already know or expect that
he would say. I find that hard to believe. However, that one-hour
session will provide Democratic presidential candidate Senator John
Kerry and his merry band of lessers a cornucopia of strike points.
This is not to say that the President said anything deserving of that
treatment -- it's just politics as usual, especially in 21st century
America.

So what's next, will President Bush and the First Lady next sit before
Diane Sawyer ala Howard and Judy Dean, holding hands, explaining his
personality quirks, whatever they may be (I don't know what they are
but we can all be assured that John Kerry has a long list that he
added to again after the President's interview)?

President Bush has irritated some among his own base and that is a far
greater concern than anything Senator Kerry and the Democrats, the
press and the pundits have to say. The huge percentage of Americans
pay no attention -- therefore, and I find this important, they don't
need to be convinced not to think something they hadn't even really
heard about or thought much about. Bad poll numbers at this time are
absolutely to be expected. The President has nothing to worry about
until he's spent half of his massive campaign monies and still finds
himself threatened by the Democratic Party presidential candidate --
and that is simply not going to be the case.

The only right response to never-ending opposition charges and
accusations is no response unless it is mandated by governmental
procedure or unless the effrontery of the comments are so egregious
that the President must, in essence, bawl the offender out in public
fashion. So once again, President Bush, I urge you to let the
lip-flapping opposition lip-flap away. America is not impressed by the
negative words of the Kerry, Senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
Senator Tom Daschle types.

My advice to the President: take a deep breath, gather the troops
together, go about the business of governing, and pay no attention to
the lip-flappers. Contrary to what the polls say, America is paying no
attention to them. Nine months from now you will be reelected to your
second term -- unless you talk too much.



February 6, 2004

"But after perusing the papers and scanning the Internet, I can find
no examples of anyone falling over dead from seeing the exposed breast
of a middle-aged woman. I know of no children who were sent to the
ubiquitous grief counselors who were probably massed to descend on
every middle school in the country to have the victims recite what
they saw ..." ~ Richard Cohen, Washington Post and syndicated
columnist.

Of course, this commentary was preceded by the obligatory "I am not
about to defend what [Janet] Jackson did."

Mr. Cohen is not alone. It seems many of the smart guys come at this
network television Super Bowl "reveal" from their own angle. Bill
O'Reilly spoke of it on his television program and said that it didn't
particularly bother him, in fact he kind of likes it when a woman
throws her breasts in his face, but he does understand that parents
would not appreciate Jackson's stunt and that she deserves some form
of punishment.

I obviously am not one of these smart guys because I don't have all
sorts of clever views on this matter -- I just have one plain and
simple view -- the entire halftime show was 100% inappropriate. There
is right and there is wrong. Folks, this is one of those times when
one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to make an absolute
determination that this was all wrong.

Cohen lumps this incident into a category that he classifies as
"trivial pursuits". Why? Because he can't see sign that anyone really
had to struggle to get past this and to live out their lives just as
they would have had it never occurred. Mr. Cohen's view of this
obviously is that old smarty-pants liberal and elitist notion that
this is a totally stand-alone incident. Americans, and I'll guess most
others in the worldwide audience, do not see this as a stand-alone act
of depravity. Rather, they see this incident as yet another step along
the path that leads away from virtue and heads towards socially
accepted moral decadence. Plain folks understand that one thing leads
to another. Plain folks understand that our children are atrociously
served by witnessing, in a safe zone (the Super Bowl), a woman
willingly permitting her breast to be exposed and a man willingly
playing a role in exposing it. Plain folks understand the definition
of "is" and they understand that this effrontery "is" wrong, period.

Mr. Cohen and others of like mind need to comprehend that children, no
matter how much we rush them through childhood these days, are exactly
what they're supposed to be ... immature. The last thing their
immature psyches need foisted upon them is the normalizing of Madonna
kissing minor women or Jackson strutting her stuff for the whole world
to see. They do not "get it" and at least some will act on their
experiences inappropriately, perhaps even dangerously.

Today comes the news that two preteen boys raped a 10-year old girl in
their school bathroom after harassing her for months. I know that at
least some of the smart guys will see no connection from this rape to
other decadent behaviors these two boys have likely been exposed to.
But to this plain and simple mind, this schoolgirl was raped in what
should be a safe zone, her life changed forever, precisely because of
what these boys have seen and precisely because their immature minds
were not 'debriefed' by attentive, concerned adults. How can I know
that? It's really easy when you're just plain and simple.

The nation is laying witness to activist judges making an important
same-sex marriage decision for all the rest of us. You see, we don't
get it - they do. And once again, a great many pundit-types are making
it known that they personally see nothing wrong with same-sex
marriage, but they do understand that most Americans are very much
against it. Often their response is to complicate the discussion when
so much of it is really very simple. You see, plain and simple folks
do not give birth to their children and then turn their backs on them.
Parents give birth not just to children but to a whole host of hopes
and dreams. This plain and simple observer is very confident in
assuming that almost no parents hope their children will grow up to be
homosexual. Am I wrong? Have you personally ever known anyone that
actually hoped their infant would grow to live a gay or lesbian
lifestyle? Of course most parents will cherish their children gay or
not, but no one can convince this plain and simple mind that it is any
parent's dream that their children will become homosexual.

To date there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic, much as
many homosexuals want us to believe there is. However, perhaps it is
genetic. If ever that was proven to be the case, I'll bet most
Americans would accept that complete normalization of the homosexual
relationship ought to take place. But until that time, plain and
simple folks want society to protect their children from normalized
and constant exposure to homosexuality. We understand all too well
that our children, once exposed over and over and over will become
more susceptible to it. We see it with other learned behaviors and
homosexuality is no different. Oh, I know - how can I be so sure? Once
again, it's really easy when you're plain and simple.

The bottom line here is that it is clear that liberal so-called
progressives and the elitists that "get it" are working to get all the
rest of us, the overwhelming majority of us, to get over our outdated
mores. A great many of us are not ready to drop the "trivial pursuits"
of holding the line on the constant erosion of our values. I think the
elites should just get over it - the plain and simple folks know more
than the elities could ever hope to.



February 4, 2004

Break out the party favors, woo-hooo, hold me down, I can't take it,
be still my heart, the excitement is - is - is ... where the heck is
the excitement?

The Democrats look very much like they've decided to go with Senator
John F. Kerry as the presidential candidate they believe to be most
'electable' - that's 'electable', not electrifying. The date is
February 4, 2004 which means there are exactly nine months until
election day 2004. Nine months is a long time to wait when you're
excited about the outcome -- it's a lot longer when you realize the
whole thing is just one big mistake.

Senator John Kerry, the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts,
is a man that most people in America don't know yet, and for good
reason - why know him when you don't have to! But now that we're going
to be forced to get to know him, once again Americans will scratch
their head and mutter that the really smart and capable Americans just
don't get into politics. Well Kerry can't be blamed for that, but he
certainly can be blamed for his record and his personality. First
Janet Jackson and now John Kerry -- perhaps 2004 is the year of the
boob.

Soon Americans will start to pay enough attention to learn that Kerry
was first a war hero but later an antiwar activist, "testifying before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry
claimed that U.S. soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,
taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up
the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians,
razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,
and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” ~ NewsMax.com

And while Americans get to know John F. Kerry, the man that sounds
like actor Christopher Lloyd, looks like a botoxed-Lurch from the
"Addams Family", and is personally as exciting as watching paint dry,
they will learn more and more of his first marriage and his
philandering ways -- "In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia
Thorne – a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got
depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around
with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married." ~
Ann Coulter (want more - NewsMax.com).

And Americans will soon find out that Senator Kerry, the junior
senator from Massachusetts, is way too much like Ted Kennedy, the
senior senator from Massachusetts. "The National Journal reports that
Kerry voted liberal 95 percent of the time on economic issues in 2002,
while Kennedy voted liberal 85 percent in the same period." ~ FOX
News. The Democrats have long fooled themselves that Ted Kennedy is
someone America likes and respects -- it looks like they're about to
fool themselves about Kerry as well.

President Bush has not yet broken open the lock on his campaign war
chest. Campaigning is probably what the president does best. One can
only imagine he'll do it better yet with the enormous funds he has at
his disposal and therefore, one can only wonder how Kerry could
possibly hope to compete with the charismatic Bush.

Hmm ... columnist Dick Morris might be on to something - he writes
that Senator Hillary Clinton might be ripe for a vice presidential
gig. Unquestionably, Mr. Excitement would have a far better chance to
fulfill his title as most 'electable' if he somehow manages to get
Hillary to run as his vice president.

Where the heck is the excitement? It might be just around the corner.
Be still my heart.



February 2, 2004

Can you just imagine the commotion if Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog
loosed on America once a year, showed up on stage in front of
thousands of kids and families and gyrated to sleazy music while
crotch-grabbing, same-sex smooching, and finally, instead of seeing
his shadow, showed us his nipple rings?

The news from Punxsutawney, PA today is that Phil was booed just for
seeing his shadow. The crowd would have skinned him alive had Phil
carried on like his fellow big name superstars P. Diddy, Nelly, Kid
Rock and Justin Timberlake did at that other once a year event watched
by kids and families, the Super Bowl. Settle down PETA, Phil has never
demonstrated the need to run around exposing himself, grabbing himself
or violating the privates of washed up divas.

Now then, the Super Bowl entertainment and entertainers are quite
another story. Evidently, despite CBS and NFL apologies and their
claims of feeling "hijacked" by the MTV halftime production, the
entertainers that were lined up to put on the big halftime show for
America and the world can only perform if they're grabbing themselves
or someone else while they lip sync about grabbing themselves or
someone else. What a sorry message to the children of America -- pure
trash from start to finish -- especially the finish when a purported
big time male superstar (Justin Timberlake) pawed at and exposed the
breast of a purported big time female superstar (Janet Jackson). If
you're buying the accidental wardrobe malfunction excuse, groundhog
Phil probably could outscore you on the Iowa Basic Skills Test with
one paw tied behind his back.

As expected, at least some in America are outraged that this was
included in the halftime show while others think it's much ado about
nothing. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a story and a poll about
the incident. At the moment of this writing, 20.43% of the respondents
think "it was funny and sexy." I'm guessing that these respondents fit
the demographic that MTV, CBS and the NFL were going after, so, to
that extent, they were successful. What they might want to notice is
that 79.57% of the respondents didn't like this show. These must be
the taken-for-granted fans, the ones that mostly watched the Super
Bowl for the football game. Here's guessing that somewhere behind
closed doors at MTV, CBS and the NFL, execs are high-fiving over the
exposure 'the exposure' has provided.

One thing is certain, the FCC noticed and they aren't high-fiving
anybody. The news from FCC Chairman Michael Powell is that the FCC
will conduct a "thorough and swift" investigation into the "classless,
crass and deplorable stunt".

While the FCC investigation is commendable, the unadulterated fact is
that the liberal liberties taken by the entertainment industry
regularly results in more sleaze foisted upon our society and culture
and ultimately an erosion of our defenses. Madonna kisses same-sex
minors - shocking - Miss Janet allows her breast to be exposed on
worldwide television - shocking - but nowhere near as shocking as what
will come. What's next? If you can think of it, it's coming and
probably sooner than you or I think.

At a minimum, the NFL deserves to feel the effects of a one-game fan
boycott. No one should attend or watch the opening game of the
2004-2005 season. But by then one of those incidents we thought would
never happen will have happened and Miss Janet's exposed breast will
be as forgotten as she was before the halftime show.

Now back to Punxsutawney's booing crowd. C'mon folks, give the rodent
a break -- he's only telling the truth. There will be at least six
more weeks of winter which explains the foot of snow I've shoveled in
the past few days. If only everyone was as honest and trustworthy as
Punxsutawney Phil.




Newzilla Notes Archives










John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...



Well, how about the victims' kin? Colleen Kelly is identified as
"lead[ing] a victims families group called "Peaceful Tomorrows." The
following is the mission statement for "Peaceful Tomorrows.'"

Peaceful Tomorrows is a left-wing group that receives much of its funding
from the Tides Center, a 501 (c)3 non-profit organization. Who's one of the
Tides Center's largest contributors? Teresa Heinz KERRY.

Using images and reminders from 9/11 is not nearly as outrageous as
organizing and funding the widows to complain about the images.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 03:02:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...



Well, how about the victims' kin? Colleen Kelly is identified as
"lead[ing] a victims families group called "Peaceful Tomorrows." The
following is the mission statement for "Peaceful Tomorrows.'"

Peaceful Tomorrows is a left-wing group that receives much of its funding
from the Tides Center, a 501 (c)3 non-profit organization. Who's one of
the Tides Center's largest contributors? Teresa Heinz KERRY.

Yup, just look at all the subversives on the contributors' list:

http://www.capitalresearch.org/searc...asp?org=TIF101

Using images and reminders from 9/11 is not nearly as outrageous as
organizing and funding the widows to complain about the images.

Really, they both seem pretty base to me. If you find them offensive, you
may want to leave the country for the next several months. This is just
the start of what is going to be a very dirty, hard fought election.