[Cody Dawg]

On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in Texas.

But increasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not.

"A lot of it is a reflection of the times," said C-SPAN's Steve Scully, president of the White House Correspondents' Association. "The whole thing is changing."

For veterans of past administrations, the changes are striking. "When the president moved it was a big deal, and I can't even remember an occasion when we didn't take a charter," said Ed Rollins, who was Ronald Reagan's White House political director.

"Go back 20 or 25 years and say we're at war and the president is traveling around the country and there are only, what, three people with him?" asked Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton's White House press secretary. "That would have been unthinkable."

From MSNBC

I think that this article highlights a great deal of the unease that Americans have about this president and his administration. So much of what they are doing is shrouded in secrecy and there are covert actions taking place, apparently.

Yes, some of it can be chalked up to national security issues, but a great deal of it cannot. It leaves people with a feeling of distrust.

Nowadays you can no longer determine if he's just out of it (the president) or if there is a reason why he ignores the American public. It's like when Katrina was blowing in and he ignored it.

More and more it seems that he's just inept and/or out of it - which is unsettling whichever way you look at it.

[Cody Dawg]

Then I just read this on the AP this morning:

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration quietly tried to cut $6 million that was earmarked for developing new explosives detection technology -- even as the British terror plot was unfolding.

Officials wanted to use the money instead on federal building protection. Congressional leaders rejected the idea.

The maneuver was one in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the administration's commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

An investigation by The Associated Press showed the department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money during the summer session of Congress.

The Bush administration has also been slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier in 2006.

The terrorist plot to blow up trans-Atlantic passenger jets would have involved liquid explosives.

Honestly, I am now more and more frequently just left puzzled and shaking my head.

[davesimondotcom]

To me, the article is (or at least the part you posted) is more about the press whining because they don't get to go everywhere the President goes, every time.

They don't like Crawford, either. So they harbor resentment for having to be there.

In other words, this is pretty much a non-story.

[Pendergast]

Iiirc, these are only a few questionable actions from a long list thats started not too long after his election. There have been a couple of threads in this forum with similar examples.

[Cody Dawg]

davesimondotcom: It's bigger than just the press whining about not being there.

You cannot deny that this administration is more about secrecy than any other before - except Nixon and we know what happened to him.

[NYCFarmboy]

in the digital age how many photographers/reporters do you need taking the same pics/asking the same questions?

I hardly view this as a conspiracy..just the reality that it is no longer necessary to have a 15 car press train with 8000 printing presses following the president around when a few reporters can and obviously are doing the job just as well.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

davesimondotcom: It's bigger than just the press whining about not being there.

You cannot deny that this administration is more about secrecy than any other before - except Nixon and we know what happened to him.

Did I deny it?

I just am tired of every little thing being some big conspiracy that Bush and Rove have going on. Sometimes things are just as they are.

[besson3c]

Cody: I'm wondering if you can explain your signature?

Is Hilary not a woman because she is not overtly feminine or passive?

[Cody Dawg]

besson3c:

If you knew the way that Hillary really was then you wouldn't ask that. More than once she has referred to people as a "f^ck*ng Jew bastard" amongst other colorful epithets. Her tirades in the White House were well known - she is no lady.

Here you go... read more about what Hillary has been involved with.

She apparently ran things more behind the scenes than Bill Clinton did. To be honest, I'm not surprised that Bill has supposedly had many affairs. She's not very feminine.

Here you can read more about Hillary's profanities. Apparently she swears more than most sailors.

[ghporter]

The big thing about secrecy with the Bush administration is that most of the people in the administration actually behave in the way they are supposed to. Secrecy is not the same as "not leaking every tiny thing that might be noteworthy to some people." "Leaking" is actually a violation of ethics and the law. However, we got used to the Clinton administration leaking almost every tiny thing wandering through Bill's brain (even who he was diddling), and so NOT seeing leaks like a sieve looks like secrecy.

In wartime it's important to keep a lot of secrets. We SHOULD NOT know almost anything having to do with actual operations in planning or being run right now. We shouldn't know about inteligence sources, actual intel, or what the strategic and tactical plans based on that information are.

I don't see this administration (as an administration) as being "too secretive." I DO see a presidential policy of reversing legally mandated openness as a Bad Thing. We have gone from reducing the number of documents classified every year to nearly doubling them every year, and that's far too much, even considering a multifront war. THIS POLICY needs to change. But not knowing what the pres is planing to do tomorrow or next week about almost anything is not a bad thing in and of itself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

besson3c:

If you knew the way that Hillary really was then you wouldn't ask that. More than once she has referred to people as a "f^ck*ng Jew bastard" amongst other colorful epithets. Her tirades in the White House were well known - she is no lady.

Here you go... read more about what Hillary has been involved with.

She apparently ran things more behind the scenes than Bill Clinton did. To be honest, I'm not surprised that Bill has supposedly had many affairs. She's not very feminine.

Here you can read more about Hillary's profanities. Apparently she swears more than most sailors.

Why do you care how much she swears? Big f-ing deal. She's a human being, she can swear as much as she wants to, just like all other politicians (including Bush) do. Why does it matter that she is female? Females are supposed to swear less in order to be lady like? What is "lady like" anyway? This has always come across to me as more of some old-school male vision of how a woman should behave. Thank goodness she is progressive enough in her thinking to *not* be that kind of lady.

As for the controversies listed in the Wikipedia article, there are certainly some questionable things there, but nothing that I would call a smoking gun. Do you think that Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than most politicians who have been in the constant public eye for as long as her, and do you think that each and every one of these skeletons is significant? The most significant of these to me are the shady business deals, not the "he said, she said" kind of stuff.

[Cody Dawg]

Why do you care that I care?



Seriously, I don't like her. Hence my signature.

If you like her then that's fine.

I dislike her for a number of reasons.

Start a thread about my signature for crying out loud but don't derail this one - that's what PM is for, remember?

Maybe I'll just do it myself and save you the trouble.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The big thing about secrecy with the Bush administration is that most of the people in the administration actually behave in the way they are supposed to. Secrecy is not the same as "not leaking every tiny thing that might be noteworthy to some people." "Leaking" is actually a violation of ethics and the law. However, we got used to the Clinton administration leaking almost every tiny thing wandering through Bill's brain (even who he was diddling), and so NOT seeing leaks like a sieve looks like secrecy.

In wartime it's important to keep a lot of secrets. We SHOULD NOT know almost anything having to do with actual operations in planning or being run right now. We shouldn't know about inteligence sources, actual intel, or what the strategic and tactical plans based on that information are.

I don't see this administration (as an administration) as being "too secretive." I DO see a presidential policy of reversing legally mandated openness as a Bad Thing. We have gone from reducing the number of documents classified every year to nearly doubling them every year, and that's far too much, even considering a multifront war. THIS POLICY needs to change. But not knowing what the pres is planing to do tomorrow or next week about almost anything is not a bad thing in and of itself.

I think the problem is a culmination of factors:

a) The Bush administration's pretty transparent desire to extend executive powers

b) Bush's distrust of the media and attempts to keep everything away from them (including many issues not relating to security, and this was apparent even before 9/11)

c) The lies, and alleged scandals involving some key Republican players making people feel uneasy. Included in this is Hariet Myers

d) What seems to be a high turnover rate in key parts of the administration

e) The awareness of programs such as the NSA wiretapping, which makes many feel uneasy for a number of reasons (which have been discussed to death)

f) The lack of credibility and general mistrust felt among the people


When you combine all of these sorts of factors together, it is easy to be paranoid about the actual motiviations of the Bush administration.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Why do you care that I care?



Seriously, I don't like her. Hence my signature.

If you like her then that's fine.

I dislike her for a number of reasons.

Start a thread about my signature for crying out loud but don't derail this one - that's what PM is for, remember?

Maybe I'll just do it myself and save you the trouble.

Sure, your signature just caught me off guard. You have never struck me as one of those "primp and proper" lady types that is overly concerned about proper "lady-like" behavior. I've always respected you as being more of a strong and independent type.

[Cody Dawg]

I am. But besson3c, if you met me you'd find a feminine person. I don't wear pink ( I despise it) and I don't wear a lot of cosmetics (usually none and think I look better for it) or jewelry or designer clothes.

But, I'm definitely feminine and I keep any expletives to myself - unless I've hammered my thumb.



I like being who I am. I like being a woman, a wife, a mother. I find that I get MUCH more done with being feminine in a man's world (I admit that it's a man's world for the most part still) than women to try to push their weight around and try to pretend that they're men.

Anyway, I started another thread in honor of you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I am. But besson3c, if you met me you'd find a feminine person. I don't wear pink ( I despise it) and I don't wear a lot of cosmetics (usually none and think I look better for it) or jewelry or designer clothes.

But, I'm definitely feminine and I keep any expletives to myself - unless I've hammered my thumb.



I like being who I am. I like being a woman, a wife, a mother. I find that I get MUCH more done with being feminine in a man's world (I admit that it's a man's world for the most part still) than women to try to push their weight around and try to pretend that they're men.

Anyway, I started another thread in honor of you.

I've replied in your other thread. BTW, you can call me "besson" for short if you'd like to.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

You cannot deny that this administration is more about secrecy than any other before - except Nixon and we know what happened to him.

You're full of crap. We know more about what this administration does than any other in history. And that's documented.

Look at all the stuff you can rattle off about this administration. Now compare that to what you know about the inner workings of the Clinton administration. I guarantee you you know way more about this administration than the previous one.

Furthermore, we don't need to know everything. These officials are charged with making the decisions. That's their job, not yours or mine.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You're full of crap. We know more about what this administration does than any other in history. And that's documented.

Look at all the stuff you can rattle off about this administration. Now compare that to what you know about the inner workings of the Clinton administration. I guarantee you you know way more about this administration than the previous one.

Furthermore, we don't need to know everything. These officials are charged with making the decisions. That's their job, not yours or mine.

So then make your point and back it up.

I don't know of anybody working in the media that professes to have an easier time working with this administration, and if there are some, they definitely seem within the minority.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

besson3c:

If you knew the way that Hillary really was then you wouldn't ask that. More than once she has referred to people as a "f^ck*ng Jew bastard" amongst other colorful epithets. Her tirades in the White House were well known - she is no lady.

Here you go... read more about what Hillary has been involved with.

She apparently ran things more behind the scenes than Bill Clinton did. To be honest, I'm not surprised that Bill has supposedly had many affairs. She's not very feminine.

Here you can read more about Hillary's profanities. Apparently she swears more than most sailors.

A friend of mine works Secret Service - White House detail. His stories would blow your mind. Much of what you mention about Hillary is true. She would consistently yell at these government workers as if everyone was her butler or maid. Meanwhile, Bill was regularly disappearing. It wasn't uncommon for their to be mini-lockdowns while they worked to locate the President.

In contrast, Laura Bush gets rave reviews, as does President Bush. They're always on time, always extremly pleasant, and they know all the agents' and staffers' names.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

A friend of mine works Secret Service - White House detail. His stories would blow your mind. Much of what you mention about Hillary is true. She would consistently yell at these government workers as if everyone was her butler or maid. Meanwhile, Bill was regularly disappearing. It wasn't uncommon for their to be mini-lockdowns while they worked to locate the President.

In contrast, Laura Bush gets rave reviews, as does President Bush. They're always on time, always extremly pleasant, and they know all the agents' and staffers' names.

That sounds like great material for some sort of tabloid, or some "inside the life of the president" expose or something.


Wake me up when you can prove that there is a significant population of journalists who claim to have had a harder time working with Clinton.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't know of anybody working in the media that professes to have an easier time working with this administration, and if there are some, they definitely seem within the minority.

Many of them are just towing the liberal line. The goal is to brand this administation as super-secretive.

When Bill lobbed missiles into Iraq... do we know what his PDBs were? Do we know who attended his energy policy meetings? Do we see photos of his administration's personal residences? Where are his medical records? Was a writer like Bob Woodward allowed unadulterated access to the White House for months at a time... of even hours at a time?

Any honest assessment of the actual information in the public domain proves beyond a doubt that the current administraion has more known about it and it's inner workings than any other.

This is not to be confused with the fact that I think much information should be kept from the public. These officials need to make decisions on the fly. There's a reason we have representatives, and why not every piece of data needs to be released for public debate.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Wake me up when you can prove that there is a significant population of journalists who claim to have had a harder time working with Clinton.

Why would I want to ask agenda-driven journalists anything when I have troves of facts and hard evidence available online that prove my point?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why would I want to ask agenda-driven journalists anything when I have troves of facts and hard evidence available online that prove my point?

I don't care whether your journalist sources are from the mainstream media or online sources, please share.

It will be interesting to see what sources you choose from, in light of your knee-jerk reaction and generalization about agenda-driven journalists.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

A friend of mine works Secret Service - White House detail. His stories would blow your mind. Much of what you mention about Hillary is true. She would consistently yell at these government workers as if everyone was her butler or maid. Meanwhile, Bill was regularly disappearing. It wasn't uncommon for their to be mini-lockdowns while they worked to locate the President.

In contrast, Laura Bush gets rave reviews, as does President Bush. They're always on time, always extremly pleasant, and they know all the agents' and staffers' names.

Wouldn't telling such stories be a significant violation of Secret Service codes of conduct?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The big thing about secrecy with the Bush administration is that most of the people in the administration actually behave in the way they are supposed to. Secrecy is not the same as "not leaking every tiny thing that might be noteworthy to some people." "Leaking" is actually a violation of ethics and the law. However, we got used to the Clinton administration leaking almost every tiny thing wandering through Bill's brain (even who he was diddling), and so NOT seeing leaks like a sieve looks like secrecy.

In wartime it's important to keep a lot of secrets. We SHOULD NOT know almost anything having to do with actual operations in planning or being run right now. We shouldn't know about inteligence sources, actual intel, or what the strategic and tactical plans based on that information are.

I don't see this administration (as an administration) as being "too secretive." I DO see a presidential policy of reversing legally mandated openness as a Bad Thing. We have gone from reducing the number of documents classified every year to nearly doubling them every year, and that's far too much, even considering a multifront war. THIS POLICY needs to change. But not knowing what the pres is planing to do tomorrow or next week about almost anything is not a bad thing in and of itself.

I agree with your final conclusion that secrecy in and of itself is no problem. However, with computer obsolescence quickening and information increasing every month, wouldn't just staying abreast of the increases in worldwide developments require an increase in documents?

And if our administration's or government or military thoughts and policies and strategies are not for public consumption wouldn't it be necessary to increase the number of classified documents, just to stay current?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Wouldn't telling such stories be a significant violation of Secret Service codes of conduct?

That's what I was thinking. Do loose lips sink careers?

[Doofy]

If you guys knew what was really going on out there (i.e. the administration told you everything), you'd all be pooping yourselves and would be out digging shelters in your back gardens. Your second civil war would start.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That's what I was thinking. Do loose lips sink careers?

It probably wouldn't take much for the Secret Service to connect spacefreak to the loose lipped agent ...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

...

See? This is an example of a liberal being unable to just button his lip. Why say anything else here, Wiskedjak? He's already probably in hot water. Do you need to see blood in order to be satisfied?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

It probably wouldn't take much for the Secret Service to connect spacefreak to the loose lipped agent ...

A person who works at the White House can't say Bush is nice and Hillary was mean? Get real.

All this from the same people who whine about White House secrecy.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't care whether your journalist sources are from the mainstream media or online sources, please share.

That is funny. You can't handle - even by simply Googling - that you'll find so much more documentation about the inner workings of this administration than any other before it. Yet this administration is the "secretive" one.

[Cody Dawg]

It's a fact that Bush is breaking the law with his wiretaps and other surveillance methods and he continues to do it. Yes, it's in the best interest of the country, supposedly, but how do we know that that is all there is? What other illegal liberties has he taken? He breaks the law to surveil people - then won't pass a bill that allows money to be spent on technology that defends national security. How stupid is that? And then there's the whole Plame debacle...I have a feeling that Bush was directly involved with that in some fashion, also, and he authorized the leak to the NY Times.

Some of it I don't really care about.

But it's like having a friend that you really like and then you find out that the friend lies about stupid silly things, things that you don't care about. You're left feeling puzzled and disappointed and eventually you realize, "Hey, if this person is lying about the small stuff, what else is this person lying about?" You eventually distrust that person entirely.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

A friend of mine works Secret Service - White House detail. His stories would blow your mind. Much of what you mention about Hillary is true. She would consistently yell at these government workers as if everyone was her butler or maid. Meanwhile, Bill was regularly disappearing. It wasn't uncommon for their to be mini-lockdowns while they worked to locate the President.

In contrast, Laura Bush gets rave reviews, as does President Bush. They're always on time, always extremly pleasant, and they know all the agents' and staffers' names.

Would that be your friend who told you lots of WMDs were found in Iraq and the truth will come out soon? We are still waiting for that press release.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

A person who works at the White House can't say Bush is nice and Hillary was mean? Get real.

Based on what you said, your friend has been doing more than simply saying "Bush is nice and Hillary was mean". Sounds like he's been telling stories about the goings-on behind closed White House doors.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

A friend of mine works Secret Service - White House detail. His stories would blow your mind.

Of course, the likelihood that you have a White House detailed SS friend is low, and the likelihood that you have a loose-lipped White House detailed SS friend is even lower.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you need to see blood in order to be satisfied?

Not at all. I personally could care less about any leaks in the Secret Service. Such leaks aren't a threat to the national security of my country. I'm just questioning the wisdom of publicly declaring that one has a friend in the Secret Service who is willing to tell stories about those he is sworn to protect.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

It's a fact that Bush is breaking the law with his wiretaps and other surveillance methods and he continues to do it. Yes, it's in the best interest of the country, supposedly, but how do we know that that is all there is? What other illegal liberties has he taken? He breaks the law to surveil people - then won't pass a bill that allows money to be spent on technology that defends national security. How stupid is that? And then there's the whole Plame debacle...I have a feeling that Bush was directly involved with that in some fashion, also, and he authorized the leak to the NY Times.

Some of it I don't really care about.

But it's like having a friend that you really like and then you find out that the friend lies about stupid silly things, things that you don't care about. You're left feeling puzzled and disappointed and eventually you realize, "Hey, if this person is lying about the small stuff, what else is this person lying about?" You eventually distrust that person entirely.

While I agree with you generally, it's very much not a "fact" that Bush is breaking the law. The law appears to be unsettled on the matter, and hopefully will be resolved soon.

I wouldn't base a judgement on the conduct of this administration solely on what the media thinks. After all, look at what those bastards are doing to Paul LoDuca! But in my own recent experience I do sense a great deal of unease building in the country, and not just on the part of the people who would bash Bush no matter what. I know several Conservatives who supported Bush in both elections, but who now think they made a mistake due to his inability to restrain spending. I know several Vietnam veterans who were personally insulted that the Democrats nominated Kerry and consider him a traitor, nevertheless openly criticize Bush and his conduct of this war. And of course, everyone is bitching over gas prices.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Of course, the likelihood that you have a White House detailed SS friend is low, and the likelihood that you have a loose-lipped White House detailed SS friend is even lower.

I really don't care what you believe, though I'm surprised you didn't pipe up when I wrote a similar recollection 2 years ago.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Would that be your friend who told you lots of WMDs were found in Iraq and the truth will come out soon? We are still waiting for that press release.

There are and have been so many REALLY GOOD REASONS that you COULD have latched onto justifying the invasion of Iraq. Yet you still refuse to move beyond what was obviously not an intentional lie, as you seem to WANT to believe (play victim much? ).

I'm not sure if you are among the small legion of people who still harp that we should be going after Osama in the caves and mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan but if you aren't I'll honor you ANYWAY by using your post as an opportunity to serve up a terrific piece by Ann Coulter to those who DO believe in the "only catch Osama" non-strategy.

More of John Kerry's Retroactive Campaign Promises

by Ann Coulter
Posted Jul 27, 2006

On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was President, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."

But wait a minute -- Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?

Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.

Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad -- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein. But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic.

Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is. America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al Qaeda and certainly not just Osama bin Laden.

Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:

-- November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

-- 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

-- April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

-- October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

-- December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

-- September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

-- December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

-- June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

-- October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

-- December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

-- April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

-- December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

(Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)

-- February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al Qaeda) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

-- Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

-- November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

-- June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al Qaeda) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

-- August 1998: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

-- October 2000: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

-- Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16228

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dork.

While I agree with you generally, it's very much not a "fact" that Bush is breaking the law. The law appears to be unsettled on the matter, and hopefully will be resolved soon.

I wouldn't base a judgement on the conduct of this administration solely on what the media thinks. After all, look at what those bastards are doing to Paul LoDuca! But in my own recent experience I do sense a great deal of unease building in the country, and not just on the part of the people who would bash Bush no matter what. I know several Conservatives who supported Bush in both elections, but who now think they made a mistake due to his inability to restrain spending. I know several Vietnam veterans who were personally insulted that the Democrats nominated Kerry and consider him a traitor, nevertheless openly criticize Bush and his conduct of this war. And of course, everyone is bitching over gas prices.

A tip of the cap to your post for it's fairness and objectivity!

Speaking of gas prices...

It's Hard Out Here for a Pump
by Ann Coulter
Posted Apr 26, 2006

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package."

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter -- another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told -- on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true -- that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...9&o=ANN001

I don't necessarily agree with all she says but she says it so entertainingly that I had to share it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Would that be your friend who told you lots of WMDs were found in Iraq and the truth will come out soon? We are still waiting for that press release.

Nope. And the majority of stuff I stated had been found has been released - tons of documents (released to the public this year), buried fighter jets, refitted silkworm missiles (see Kay report), sarin canisters (recall Santorum). I did get the plutonium thing wrong... it was actually 1.8 metric tons of yellowcake uranium.

I was just offering up what I heard. And never did I state that "lots of WMDS were found in Iraq". The key finding was always the troves of documents.

You must have been emotionally devastated when the government released all of them to public this year, putting to rest any doubt that there was a bonafide working relationship btween Saddam's regime and al Qaeda.