Black Dog

Y'know, maybe you think lines like this make you seem clever or something, but they really only compromise your position, show that you have no argument save for relentless ad hominems and make you look like a jerk. Grow up.

I don't think "Rush Limbaugh is a moronic blowhard" exactly qualifies as a revalation. Must be a "liberal media" conspiracy against a guy whose made a pretty good living sucking off the teat of the same "liberal media".

Here. This was bound to heppen. We need to pull our troops out of the mess the U.S. has created in that country.

Programs. As in: plans. Not the clear and present threat that Bushco claimed existed before the war. So, Bush and Blair told the world Iraq represented an immediate threat and needed to be disarmed immediately. They said nothing about Iraq might be a threat 5 or so years down the road. Right...now. Oh, but then WMD weren't the reason they went to war, isn't that right? How many WMD can dance on the head of a pin, Craig? That's what your hair-splitting about "violations of the UN" (an organization you have nothing but contempt for and fear of) and "human rights" (which never concerned your ilk when Saddam was gassing Iranians and Kurds). You've been had.

Where Craig fails (as usual) is his reading of Islam as a monolithic, homogenous entity and that the "failures" he listed are byproducts of some kind of universal Muslim orthodoxy (while of course hiding behind unprovable claims that he's been "there", as if that justifies or excuses his vile racism). There are non-Islamic countries across the globe that exhibit the traits above. For example, Latin America is plagued with poverty, inequality, violence, civil wars and tyrannical regimes, yet most countries in that region are devoutly Catholic (another "failure" I guess). the distinction needs to be made between causes. Instead of acknowleging the complexities of post-war geopolitics and the lingering effects of imperialism, Craig takes the coward's way out and, as befits his rigid, dogamtic idealogy, lays 100 per cent of the blame on Islam's doorstep. Fact is, Islam is no more of a failure than Christianity or Judaism: you can't blame the religion for how it is applied. ALright I challenged you before to produce any evidence and, to my utter lack of surprise, you failed to deliver. Now I'm saying again: prove it. Back up your smears or cease your dull pontification.

But we're not the one's saying "abortion is murder!" Where's the inconsitency?

Now, what shape it will be in is another story....

I've always been of two minds of the abortion issue, but a girl I know had this to say on the subject, which I think speaks volumes. And yet some of abortion's most vocal critics are also ones who rail against the "nanny state", support the death penalty and are ardent supporters of the western war machine. Hypocrites.

The U.S.A is not a race.

Have at 'em.

Blah blah blah. You are a self-important bore. Only a complete dullard would twist criticism of American policies into "racism" as you have. As for incoherent hatred, I believe you've cornered the market on that here (as anyone who would read any of your drivel on Islam knows). Yeah, that's exactly it. Do you actually read the articles or do you just look at the headlines before assaulting your straw men?

You are a vile troll, Craig. Can you cite instances of Said's racism? Can you back up your loathsome accusations with facts? As usual, the answer is no: you just vomit your racist bile and hide behind ideological dogma masquerading as intellectualism. Said had more compassion, intelligence and wisdom in his fingernails than could ever be found in the poisoned bog of your brain, Craig. Said was an eloquent and vocal defender of the Palestinian cause, yet retained some of his sharpest criticism for the ruling elites of the Muslim world. Said also called for an end to the tired models of discourse that inevitably lead to the flawed false dichotomies of "good" versus "evil", "us" againts "them" etc. In his own words. More Said. Fisk on Said. Hitchens too.

First: I'm not a Democrat: I'm a Canadian. Second: I think such a blatant miscarriage of justice and affront to democracy should be questioned and condemned regardless of who won. But your kind are more interested in idealogical, partisan allegiances than true democracy. Third: What the hell does presidential protocol have to do with this?

Ooh, another insightful analysis from Craig "CIA" Read. *clap....clap......clap*

Read all about it.

Lookout, Saddam: it's the Marshall Islands! How many of the coalition of the billing actually contributed men, materials or other resources? Keep spinning.

Read all about it. Will Bush be re-elected?

That's only if you accept, with childlike faith, that Bush believed what he was saying. Personally, I'm skeptical enough to question virtually every word that comes out a politician (any politician)'s mouth. If George Bush, or Bill Clinton for that matter, said the sky was blue, I'd have to look out my window to make sure.

I'm still trying to figure out what makes Paul Martin, a millionaire business man beloved of the Bay Street financial establishment and notorious fence-sitter on social issues, a "liberal."

So every time the U.S. shits on the rug, the UN has to clean it up? You must be an American. Bwahhahah. It's called "oil", son. It's what makes the U.S. (and the Bush administration) tick. I would hope General Clark would at least know how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, unlike a certain presidential bumbler.

Refute what? Just because you can regurjitate a bunch of allegations from google and call them facts does not make them so. Sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken. if the links between AQ and IOraq were as concrete and obvious as you claim them to be, why wouldn't that have been front and centre as the casuse for war, instead of vague accusations of "supporting terrorism"? If there is proof, why isn't it being shown? Why are U.S. officials (including the president himself) now stating there are no links between the two? Maybe the CIA needs to get in touch with the all-knowing Craig since he can get more from 15 minutes on google than they can through years of intelligence work. Proof? There ain't any. And this has what to do with Iraq, now? Yeah, because Israel would have absolutely nothing to gain from Saddam's removal, right? This is a lie and it has been resoundingly debunked by intellegence sources, including the CIA. Well, golly gosh, that proves it! You hear that: Iraq failed to condemn 9-11! That's pretty much the same thing a sbeing responsible, i guess.

Bush lied. Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles. Nor was there ever any convincing evidence offered to show that he did, just half-truths (ie. the aluminum tubes, the trailers) or outright lies (ie. the Niger uranium). That's why the administration has been backing away from its claims. A quick perusal of the record shows Bushco going from knowing excatly how much and and how many WMD Iraq posessed to throwing their hands in the air and declaring "They had 'em,! Honest!" But why listen to Dubya when we can hear from someone who was, you know, actually there. Or could it have been because many of the "inspectors" were actually CIA agents charged with locating Saddam and targetting him for assasination. Hmmmmm... Spies like them. Uh huh. "25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."- George W, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003 Not Drain-O. Not bags of fertilizer, but a massive, soophisticated program, complete with the means to deliver them. Where are they. You're grasping at straws now. And, uh, what exactly would that accomplish at this point? Doesn't one have to actually BE elected before they can be re-elected?

I'd agree that the UN needs reform. Starting by dismantling, or at least removing the power of veto from, the Security Council. And I apologize if I mistakenly labeled you a right-winger. How does one distribute something one does not have?

Or he could have won. Or maybe he would have won if thousands of voters had not been struck from the rolls. Or id the recounts hadn't been impeded. Or any other of the crooked goings-on that made the whole affair stink to high heaven. It says a lot that, despite the numerous and disturbing irregularities in the 2000 election, Republicans are content to shrug their shoulders and declare that folks should "get over it." Partisanship: 1. Democracy: 0.

Yes, some of the most prosperous periods in recent US history have corresponded with "liberal" government policies and relatively large scale state involvement.