Morgan

Sir Riff, Craig points out a significant and valid problem about Dr. Vilain's research paper ie. its hyped "hardwired homosexuality "findings were not considered/accepted by his peers. UCLA consciously mislead the press about the findings of Dr. Vilain's research in a press release issued on October 15, which was 5 days before the research was actually published. The misleading findings/conclusions/hypothesis in the press release were not be stated in the actual scientific paper because if Vilain had tried to do that, the scientific peer review committee would not have allowed his paper to be published. There was no scientific basis to make that leap in judgement. In other words, what Dr. Vilain actually found/concluded is a far cry from what UCLA's press release stated and which Reuters published. This was pointed out in an intersex organization's newsletter as follows. FTMA's observations on UCLA's brain study.

Wakey, wakey, Guardian readers. What Perle says is that the Iraq War is an example of how international law is disconnected from doing the right thing. He says it would have been morally unacceptable to allow Saddam to remain in power...hence the US rounded up a coalition of the willing...countries that were willing to do the right thing. If people need to believe that invading Iraq is following international law, a case has been made for the invasion because Saddam did not adhere to the 91 ceasefire agreement and because Saddam was a threat to the US's national security. Saddam and Al Qaeda had agreed to pursue a co-operative alliance to destroy US interests. But for people like Perle (and me),international law, as it stands, has lost its validity for justifying action. Otherwise, if international law and justice were truly the guiding lights of the UN, 80% of the thugs/dictators/psychopaths who currently lead the UN nations would have been put behind bars years ago.Come on...international law? What a joke...the likes of Assad and Castro and Mugabe and Quadaffi and company defile "law" and mock "justice " at every opportunity. International "law" is a sham.

I think the justice system needs to be reformed. How this can be done, I don't know. Many of the "liberal" thinkers you speak of , RT_1984, are currently warming the judicial benches. If the "bleeding heart" judges give soft sentences, and the criminals are out and about in a short time, it doesn't matter how many police officers you have on "the beat." Here's an example of the Canadian justice system in action. The US is calling the Canadian justice system lax, which means it's really bad, because the US system is pretty soft, too. Defendents have more rights according to the ACLU and the Supreme Court than law abiding citizens.

I agree, Craig, if the UN and its accompanying NGO groupies succeed in having their corrupt socialist paws control the Internet, we know this will spell trouble for the West. Apparently, the countries leading the charge on this issue are China and Saudi Arabia and Cuba, along with some of their Third World pals from Africa. Ouch. A double whammy of giving dictators censorship powers as well as hand-outs for their Swiss bank accounts. Honestly, from what I've read, the UN plans are pretty nasty. The African delegates want the rich countries to pay so each starving AIDS ridden African can have Internet access, and China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia want the government to control the Internet content of the universal net access. No doubt the Liberals will have Canada onboard in 2 seconds. I fear that the US will have no support in the discussions except from the UK, Australia, Japan, and when it comes to dealing with the UN, I've not been impressed with Powell - he's kind of a milquetoast. Here's an opinion piece from the Christian Science Monitor. The editors of the CSM are worried, so you know it's bad because they usually love all things UN. Defend the Internet, Christian Science Monitor, Oct.31/03

The things I've read point to the press[cough Washington Post, NYT]running with an unconfirmed story about a brave female in the Army, that was seeded by some Clintonestra feminists in the Pentagon. Women in the military - yes - look what they can do...look pretty but shoot the bad guys left and right...right on! I think half the story was right but the other half was feminist fantasy. Jessica Lynch was used all right...but it wasn't by Bush or by Rumsfield to promote the war. It was the "PC" media along with the Clintonestra feminists in the military establishment to promote the idea of women can do anything, including fight a war.. .Who used Jessica Lynch. And yes, Lynch was raped anally, Black Dog. It was confirmed by the military medical team who first examined her but only after her biography came out with that admission. As for what the Iraqi doctors said, since they still need to stay alive in Baghdad with all those gentlemenly Mr. Feyadeens still running around, what else would you advise them to say????I think the lawyer who tipped off the US military as to where Lynch was being held and who is now safely esconced in the USA is more likely telling the truth than the Iraqi doctors who are scared to death of retribution.

I stumbled across these amazing 1945 NYT headlines that were posted on a political news blogspot called CounterRevolutionary. The posting thread is named "Ghosts of Occupations Past-Marshall lied" and can viewed by scrolling down from Nov. 20 through Nov.03. There are also live links to other threads re: WW II news headlines postings at the end of the Nov. 17 message ie. Ghosts of occupations past-trouble brews as well as Ghosts of occupations past-the peace is lost. NYT headlines from 1945 and their relevance today For now I'll just highlight what the blogger said on Nov. 20 under the "Marshall lied" thread of NYT 1945 headlines: I think these headlines from WWII shed valuable "truths" about we must eventually stand up to evil in our midst...and even though the usual suspects in the international community and the doom and gloom talking heads in the media may disagree, their opinions do not make the action of removing evil any less right...

Black Dog, 1. The author of the article about the composition of Stop the War Coalition, Amir Taheri, has written 10 books on the Middle East and Islam and is Muslim himself. To make a long story short, Taheri is well credentialed and well respected and his research is accordingly more believable than your emotionally driven derisive "critique" which has no substance but only insult. It must be painful to read about the motley assortment of knaves and fools who comprise the anti-war coalition, and to add insult to injury, the information is given by an Iranian Muslim, and not by a WASP Republican. So sad. 2. As for your condemnation of Rumsfield "pressing" the flesh of Saddam and the evils of anti-Iraq sanctions...here's my response...get your brain unstuck from 20 years back and move along in time like the rest of the world has done. For instance, you'd like everyone to think that the US was the only country that ever befriended Saddam. But you are not being honest, are you? If the truth beknown, the USA, like other countries you obviously hold in high regard, all befriended Saddam at one time or another. In fact, Jacques Chirac's relationship with Saddam is ages old. It was Chirac who sold Saddam the nuclear reactor that Israel eventually bombed to smithereens [yes!] and it was Chiraq's French oil company, Totalfinaelf, that had just signed a lucrative oil contract with Saddam shortly before the second Iraq War. Furthermore, prepare yourself for sad news about another noble peacenik political hero...Jean Chretien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais, and the Desmarais family were the largest individual stockholders in Totalfinaelf. So coincidently, Jean Chretien's family had alot of money riding on the fact that Saddam stay in power...but enough about peace-loving senile Canadian politicians, back to evil Rumsfield... Here's the big difference with the USA's relationship with Saddam. The USA changed its attitude to Saddam, but your favourite countries did not. After the first Gulf War, the US had nothing but contempt for Saddam, whereas FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA [the very countries you think are so morally upstanding for being obstructionist about the second Gulf War that toppled Saddam] INCREASED their business with with psycho Saddam. They sold him chemicals and weapons and signed contracts with him to drill for oil in Northern Iraq, knowing full well that he brutalized his people and spent all the oil profits on his own personal bank accounts and on weapons to keep non-Baathist Iraqis enslaved. How dare you harp on Rumsfield shaking the hand of Saddam when your "anti-war" countries were propping up Saddam in power for the last 20 years knowing full well by this time that there was no doubt about Saddam being one of the sickest despots known to man. Even the anti-war media of today, like CNN, dealt with Saddam to the bitter end and even went so far as to embelish his reputation, while hiding the truth about his brutality...remember Jordan Easton and his recent confession about the duplicitous news department of CNN? Even today, the mainstream news media are following Saddam's old practice of hiring "minders" ...I guess old habits die hard, eh? As for the US and the Kurds, how is it that the Kurds love the USA so much and actually welcomed the coalition troops back last fall and collaborated with Special Forces to get tactical information to be used against Saddam? Here's why...something you have forgotten or perhaps never read. The US and Brits for the last 20 years have kept the Kurds alive with their "no-fly" zones, which kept Saddam on a tight leash and which prevented him from attacking the Kurds again. Were it not for the US and Brits, [not the anti-war protesters, not France, Germany, Russia] Saddam would have finished off the Kurds long time ago. So that's why the Kurds feel indebted to the USA, and not to anti-war protesters, France, Germany, or Russia. As for the sanctions...the sanctions did not starve or kill anyone...Saddam did those things to his own people, because he misused the UN plan so as to profit himself and to build up his armaments. 3. Here's another Canadian writer that does a take on the anti-war protesters, via Neale News. I guess it's just a no-good, very bad 2 days for Marxists-Islamofascists-useful idiots...err, no offense intended... Moral blindness blinds anti-war protesters, by Marcus Gee, Nov.21/03

Daniel, Read the article link and the cut and paste blurb I provided approximately 4 posts back entitled "Who are the anti-Bush protesters in London" by Amir Taheri. Taheri is an Iranian author who researched the composition of the Stop the War Coalition and he had a discussion with the organization's spokesperson. Happy reading!

Dear Lost, Sorry I got the New Deal sponsor, Mayor Glen Murray, mixed up with Manitoba Premier Doer. But it makes no difference really in my evaluation of the New Deal...more new taxes, no guarantees that property taxes will be substantially reduced as a result, all done so Murray and his over paid, over sized municipal staff levels are not reduced and so no votes are lost as a result of the cuts. Lost, here's an article that's another way of explaining what I said before. Pay attention...New Deal= high publicity con game by Mayor who is planning to run on Liberal ticket in the next election and get appointed Director of Urban Affairs. Highly paid City Managersshould be fired before New Deal is considered, Nov.8/03, The Sun.

1. The following article seems to challenge the information in the links that you have posted: Crime without punishment, by Eli Lehrer, May 27/02 2. Though these Canadian youth crime stats are from 1999, they give a good picture of dramatic increases that have taken place in the last few years: Youth Violent Crime, Stats Can, December 21/99.

Sir Riff, Fyi, I answered your "targeted" question about the Bush Admin. not trumpeting that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. It's about 5 messages back.

Sir Riff, In case you didn't bother to read how this thread started...it was because of an article by Margaret Wente wherein she said: Your dismissal of Iraqis' pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war comments together with your baseless rant against America just proves that what Wente said in her article is true. In fact, there's a curious familiarity to the gist of the comments made by the spokesperson for Stop the War coalition: Who are the London anti-Bush protesters? by Amir Taheri People like Wente and the President of Amnesty Int'l USA see that Iraqis' "opinions" are in fact more genuine and more worthwhile when talking about the Iraq War, than the phony mantras of the coalition of Marxist-Leninist-Islamic militants and their useful idiots who protest the Iraq War but are silent about psycho dictators and homicidal terrorists.

Typo error...mea culpa...BBC predicted 100,000 and police say only 70,000 showed up. Police should know because they have to have appropriate numbers of police on hand. And, yes, the fox-hunting protest rally which drew 400,000 people last year speaks volumes as to failing support of the left wing hate-Bush folks. The following article was written by an Iranian author who describes the composition of the anti-war protest marchers...very enlightening, indeed. Who are the anti-Bush protesters in London? Amir Taheri

An Iraqi Blogger says that anti-war protesters owe Iraqis an apology: Anti-war protresters owe Iraqis an apology

1. What's interesting too is that even though the BBC had been pumping up anti-Bush hysteria in the UK for 2 weeks before Bush's arrival, predicting that 400,000 anti-Bush protesters would come to Trafalgar Square, police estimate only 70,000 showed up today. So even left wing "soldiers" are deserting the Left's "cause." To give you an idea of how pathetic the numbers of the anti-Bush crowd were, there were over 400,000 people marching to protest fox-hunting in the UK one year ago. 400,000 protest fox-hunting, but only 70,000 protest Bush's visit Police say only 70,000 anti-Bush protesters showed up at Trafalgar Square 2. more on how Iraqis view George Bush and his getting rid of Saddam: Baghdad Graffitti, Newsday, Nov. 19/03 3. William Schultz ( Amnesty Int'l USA) apparently gave a great interview re: the disingenuous posturing of the anti-Iraq War/hate Bush crowd in Salon.com a few days ago, but it requires a subscription to access the full text.

Black Dog, 1. Bush denied any direct link of 9/11 to Iraq in September because the USA has no "hard evidence." Cheney had been raked over the coals just the week before for suggesting that link in an interview with Tom Russet. Material and logistical support by Saddam is not enough to say Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. Even Richard Woolsey, who was the CIA Director appointed by Clinton, says the ongoing co-operation between Saddam and Al Quaeda is obvious, and it's arguable but there's no hard evidence to link Saddam with 9/11. Clinton's ex-CIA Chief, Woolsey, says Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda are a "slam dunk", Nov.18/03 2. Read "Catastrophe" by Posner, a registered Democrat Wall Street lawyer, who suggests it would be a big can of worms for the Bush Admin. to get too close to linking Saddam with 9/11. It would cause Americans to not be able to sleep at night, knowing that bureaucrats in the intelligence agencies and State Dept. as well as politicians in Congress were failing them with regards to national security, promoting personal interests instead. As well, Bush's war on terrorism would be compromised if he linked 9/11 to Saddam because in so doing it would be also revealed that so-called "allies" in moderate Muslim countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia were not that far removed from Saddam in their support of terrorism.

Mr. Farrius and Black Dog, You asked what Saddam had to do with 9/11. Here are a few points which amplify on what Craig posted earlier today. 1. Saddam may have helped bank roll the 9/11 conspiracy . Atta met with an Iraqi high level diplomat several times in Prague before 9/11 and Czech officials think the two men made arrangements for Saddam's money to be directed to the hijackers in the USA. In a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was ultimately expelled from the Czech Republic on April 22, 2001. The Praque Connection Re-visited, by Edward J. Epstein, Slate, Nov.18/03 2.Excerpts from an independent Iraqi newspaper detail how Saddam provided for the training of 100 Al Qaida terrorists. One group of Al Quaida were trained in Salaman Pak on the hi-jacking of planes and using knives, and after leaving Iraq, they went on to stage 9/11 just 2 months later . The other group trained in Al-Nahrawan and are now fighting coalition forces. The training of the 2 groups was supervised by the Fedayeen Command. Btw,on Sunday, April 6, 2003, soldiers of the 7th Marine Regiment found a rusted shell of an old passenger jet with its tail broken off in an empty field, along with a fire engine, a wreck of a double-decker bus, and three green and red train cars stuck in the dirt, suggesting that the terrorists were training on how to take over a bus or train cars as well as a plane. Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher reveals details on the training of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq 2months prior to 9/11 3. Richard Miniter has a good article in Tech Central that summarizes all the links between Iraq and Al Quiada, including 9/11 collaboration. Mr. Farrius, fyi, Miniter's summary is very concise, based on evidence that's public record -- government reports, congressional testimony,and newspaper accounts. Miniter is a contributing journalist to Wall Street Journal and is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror." The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections by Richard Miniter, Tech Central,Sept.25/03 4. Deroy Murdock has an excellent article in National Review, Oct. 21, 2003 on Saddam's connection to several incidents of international terrorism, including 9/11, and he calls for the Bush Admin. to tell the public the truth about Saddam's possible link to 9/11 instead of staying mum on the matter.(Contrary to leftwing spin, the Bush Admin. has never associated Saddam with 9/11...in fact, it's been quite the opposite) A summary of Saddam's links to terrorism by Deroy Murdock, Oct. 21, 2003 The following contributed to the "material evidence" supplied by the families of 9/11 victims to Judge Harold Baer:Yusuf Galan, an alleged terrorist accused of helping the 9/11 conspirators was arrested in Spain and Spanish authorities discovered documentation at his home that tied him and others to Iraqi officials. Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad, The Observer, March 16, 2003 5. Saddam's Iraqi agents might have been the masterminds behind Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.[ Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity, Evening Standard, October 21, 2002 Jayna Davis maintains her own website with all her research regarding Saddam's link to the Oklahoma bombings. Her website has too many active links to summarize here. Jayna Davis's personal website and her research with linked articles

Sir Riff and Loniusfleabag, You still don't answer the question of why a 1998 independent investigation that was undertaken by a multi-task force, not just the CIA, under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, without involvement by Dr. Kay, concluded that Bin Laden and Saddam had an agreement with one another to pursue the development of WMD to be used against the USA. That was 4 years ago and this conclusion was drawn in the course of investigating the African bombings. Or perhaps you believe that George Bush conspired with Bill Clinton to frame poor Saddam?

Sir Riff and Loniusfleabag, You say that Kay was being purposefully vague in his report so as not to make Bush look bad, that the CIA lied in their earlier reports to give Bush the evidence he wanted to invade Iraq, but neither you have explained how in 1998, under your hero, Slick Willy, his Justice Dept. headed by Janet Reno came to the same conclusion as the Bush Admin. 4 years later ie. that OBL and Saddam had agreed to co-operate on procuring/developing WMD. In 1998, Reno's Justice Dept. used evidence put together by the largest task force ever assembled to collect evidence abroad. The CIA was not even the driving force. Nor did Slick Willy need to blackball Saddam to "avenge his father" as the Left likes to accuse Bush of doing. How do you explain the following? Bin Laden indicted in US Court for African bombing, Nov. 4, 1998 White charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives. "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the (238 count)indictment said.

Black Dog, I think it's you whose bubble will be burst...honestly, you should read more carefully before jumping to conclusions. a)What the DOD describes as being "inaccurate" are the news reports claiming the DOD "confirmed" "new" information linking Saddam to Al Qaida per the leaked classified annex. The DOD does not say the memo is inaccurate at all. b)The DOD then goes on to say that classified annex represents "raw data", not an analysis that drew any conclusions. Indeed, the DOD does not dispute the validity of the raw data, but merely says the leaked classified annex does not represent a detailed final report, which of course it doesn't. c) Fyi, the Saddam-Al Qaida link was brought to light under Bill Clinton's regime by Janet Reno's Justice Department. US Info.Agency Nov.4/98 OBL indicted for African bombings and OBL-Saddam link reported

1. I agree with you, Craig. Appeasement, empathy for and understanding of root causes of terrorism is foolish liberal rhetoric. The following article gives a good historical perspective of Islamic terrorism in the ME. What's interesting to note is that the radical Islamics are outraged by any evidence of social/political progress in the ME, not by the oppression.So contrary to the Left Wing's take on Islamic terrorism being a response to oppression of poor Muslim masses,it's actually the potential for the liberation of ordinary men and women in Muslim countries that the fundamentalist Islamics seek to prevent. Arab and Muslim regimes attacked by the Islamic monster they created, by Amir Taheri, Nov. 15/03 2. So liberals take note. While pounding the evils of capitalism in the USA[worship of Mammon], it's actually "progressive" liberal philosophy that is causes Islamic anger. Noble goals like legalizing gay marriage and pot make for good sound bites on CBC, but those very types of ideas that are loathesome to radical Islamic terrorists. Here's another article about fundamental Islamics and their self-righteous vision of themselves and their outrage at things we take for granted - like women having the freedom to leave the house without a male escort. These are not Arabs clamouring for re-distibrution of wealth. These are middle class Arabs defending rigid social mores that enslave 50 % of their population. I wonder how "Sex in the City" would play in the ME? Islamic religiousangered by TV satire, by Abu Nasr, Nov.15/03 Newsday 3. Regarding terrorists seeking WMD in the past and still working to achieve this goal today, here are some recent articles I read. One of the articles is a chilling allegation, if it's true. It brings up a possible link between OBL and Saddam, but it's based on a "leaked" report so veracity of report is still unclear. Congo rebels sold Al-Qaeda uranium, AFP Nov. 13/03 Saddam-Ossama Link, NY Post, Nov.15/03 U.S.intelligence showing Iraq-Al Qaeda link, Nov.14/03, Stephen Hayes, The Weekly Standard Czech police nab men trying to buy materials for nuke, FOX news, Nov.15/03 As well, I'll provide a url that gives a startling example of how the mainstream media[in this case the Washington Post is highlighted], fibs about the dangers of terrorism at our expense. Washington Post's Nuclear Weapons Fibs, NY Post, Nov. 15/03

I think the Democrats have gone beyond "dangerously childish." Consider these reprehensible comments by Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and Senator Diane "Minority Rights Crusader" Feinstein this afternoon after the Democrats blocked the nominations on 3 successive votes: Democrats continue to block judicial nomination process, Nov.14/o3 "...After the votes, top Democratic senators stuck to their guns. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said Democrats will continue to resist what he describes as "any Neanderthal" the president nominates. Noting that Thanksgiving is coming up, Kennedy called on Bush to release his "right-wing turkeys." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that Democrats have the right and the obligation to block nominees that are too far out of the mainstream..." Neanderthals? Turkeys? Too far out of the mainstream? These are the judicial nominees that Democrats refer to as cave people, on the fringe: - a white woman, - a black woman, - a Hispanic man, - a Catholic, and - a Baptist I can see why Zell Miller said the Democrat Party is being destroyed from within. Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton are examples of the new racist, bigoted Democrats who want to take the whole party and country down. In the next election cycle, about 1/3 of the senators are up for re-election. I think Democrat registered voters who are women, blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Baptists should vote Republican without hesitation. The Democrats view them as "useful idiots" who lose their sparkle after becoming educated and outstanding in their professions. And I think Frist and the other country club Republicans should take the gloves off with the Democrats. The refined "quid pro quo" co-operation stuff is maybe suitable when dealing with Democrats of yore, not the Democrats of today. For starters, the Republicans should buy full page ads in all the major daily newspapers and appeal to the people, for goodness sake. The media will not be reporting this issue properly, so the Republicans need to by-pass the "news" reporters and take this battle to the electorate a.s.a.p.

Dear Mr. Farrius et al, A. Personally I think you impune Nuclear unfairly because you're not even considering that Nuclear's comments may have been hyperbole, written out of a sense of frustration at GI's being picked off like"sitting ducks" by murderous guerilla fighters and their supporters. Definition of: Hyperbole (n.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect. Source: www.brainydictionary.com I believe that Nuclear was showing total exasperation at how the politically correct world we live in is not suited for fighting an asymetrical war. You have to admit that the coalition's soldiers are at a distinct disadvantage when fighting according to rules of conventional warfare in Iraq, whereas Al Feyadeen and Baathists dress and look like regular Iraqi civilians, they do not wear uniforms, instead they hide within civilian neighbourhoods, mosques and schools and use every dirty trick in they can. B. The Iraqis themselves have expressed outrage, as well, at the coalition's reluctance to come down hard on the insurgents, to do what needs to be done to get rid of the evil ones, and that's why they want more of them to be militarized to flush out saboteurs, kill them and any persons abetting them. The Kurds are chomping at the bit to use extreme force to take back Tikrit from the Baathists and remnants of the Republican Guard who currently control that city. The coalition commanders have not agreed to the Iraqis' requests for obvious reasons, as articulated by FastNed. C. Btw, I'll quote you two examples of what I consider going beyond bad taste, of being calculated and hateful. These are not off handed comments expressed spontaneously on a political discussion forum for limited readership. But rather these are public figures promoting their opinions formally to the general public. a) Mr. Ted Fall, an award winning "professional" journalist wrote this article for mass publication on Veteran's Day, no less, under the auspices of United Press Syndicate. Why we fight, Iraq from the other side, by Ted Rall, Nov.11/03 "...Dear Recruit: Thank you for joining the Iraqi resistance forces. You have been issued an AK-47 rifle, rocket-propelled grenade launcher and an address where you can pick up supplies of bombs and remote-controlled mines. Please let your cell leader know if you require additional materiel for use against the Americans...our only option is guerilla warfare: we must kill as many Americans as possible at a minimum risk to ourselves. As the Afghan resistance to the Soviets and the Americans' own revolution against our former colonial masters the British have proven, it will only be a matter of time before the U.S. occupation forces become demoralized. As casualties and expenditures rise, the costs will outweigh the economic and political benefits of occupation. Soon the American public will note that the anticipated five-year price tag of $500 billion, with a probable loss of some 4,000 lives and 10,000 wounded, is not a reasonable price to pay to get our 2.5 million barrels of oil flowing to the West each month...we must continue to kill them until the last one has gone home to America..." Rall's article is too dispicable to quote full text. Read it for yourself Runner up, IMHO, for hateful speech award after Ted Rall is Nicholas De Genova, a Columbia University professor who told a March 26 anti-war gathering of 3000 students that he would like to see 'a million Mogadishus', referring to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 American servicemen. At the same 'teach-in' held on campus property, the good professor, after calling for the bloody defeat of U.S. forces in Iraq said, 'The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.' And he asserted that Americans who call themselves 'patriots' are white supremacists. This incident was widely reported in the media and in spite of calls for the firing of De Genova, a non-tenured anthropology professor, by Congressional representatives, Columbia alumni, as well as the general public, Columbia U. Admin. did nothing. So, yes, I agree there are nutty people in both left and right political camps, but I see no reason to believe Nuclear is one of these people. I think Nuclear was just upset at the deaths of the dozen GI's shot down in a helicopter on their way home for a 2 week furlow, media images of Iraqi teens rejoicing, and did not mean an intemperate emotional outburst to be viewed as a recommended policy of military engagement in Iraq. .

Sir Riff and Lost, Didn't you read my post about the breast cancer risk associated with abortion that has been buried by the pro-abortion advocates? You think that's okay? Is cancer risk another example of abortion being nobody's business and that if a woman wants to expose her body to breast cancer risk, it's her choice? But how does an omission of information like breast cancer risk make abortion "informed consent?" Nowadays you can't take a simple antibiotic without the pharmacist giving you a run down on all the possible contra-indications but abortion and breast cancer link not being mentioned is just perfectly fine.

I can't recall any articles about insiders in the CIA speaking out to newspapers. I do recall poor intelligence gathering by the CIA not only with respect to Iraq but also it was the CIA that dropped the ball re: 9/11. George Tenet, head of the CIA who was a Clinton appointee, should have been fired long time ago. He's intent on running the CIA into the ground. Fyi, the Washington Post is no different than the NYT. Both are left wing positioned newspapers. Donald E. Graham, CEO of the Post and son of Katherine Graham, is a life long Democrat and member of the Bilderberg Planning Group, of New World Order fame. His uncle is Democrat Senator Bob Graham of Florida. As for the recent leak ,you speak of, regarding the CIA "operative"...are you talking about the case involving Left wing ex-Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame, who had a desk job in the CIA which people knew about irrespective of the alleged "leak?" The whole story was a tempest in a teapot that was much to do about nothing. Wilson is a Democrat party lackey who made a fool of himself in the process. I think Mark Steyn says it best: If sending Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger for a week is the best the world’s only hyperpower can do, that’s a serious problem. If the Company knew it was a joke all along, that’s a worse problem. It means Mr Bush is in the same position with the CIA as General Musharraf is with Pakistan’s ISI: when he makes a routine request, he has to figure out whether they’re going to use it to try and set him up. This is no way to win a terror war. Bigger than Watergate, By Mark Steyn, October 11, 2003 The CIA leak that never was, By Robert Novak, Oct.01, 2003