Q & A

Is it a good idea for the Bush administration to delay tighter border security on the Mexican and Canadian borders?

It's a very bad idea.

It's very dangerous.

But our Decider, with all of his repeated mantras about protecting you and me, isn't protecting us.

He just believes that he is with his pre-emptive war.

His perpetual state of denial is going to get you and me killed.

How could New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's declaration of independence shake up the '08 presidential race?

Bloomberg's wealth will shake up the race.
Bloomberg can buy the presidency better than any other candidate.

This might be good.

A very, very rich man could ignore all of the influences wrought by the corporate powers and rich cronies that have had a stranglehold on most of our presidents.

Should Army combat tours be once again extended from 15-months?

No.

They should not be extended at all.

They should stop.

Congress should cut off all funds.

Bring the troops home.

Start getting ready for the disasters and attacks that are going to come to America.

Iraq is no longer a place where American lives should be sacrificed.

The only tours that should be taken should be by future tourists when they see an Iraq no longer occupied by a foreign power.

RESPONSES TO EMAILED QUESTIONS

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we ?

Yes, and this war is the one that we helped to enhance by
attacking-pre-emptively invading then occupying a country that did not
attack NY on 9-11 but now is the hunting ground and breeding ground for the
so-called ISLAMOFASCISM.

Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our
shores on September 11, 2001 ?

No, it was not. It was 14 men from Saudi Arabia...you know, the
hand-holding cheek-kissing buddies of Dick Cheney and the Bush family. Not
all of the people of Islam. What a generalization!

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally
murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our
nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Yes.

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,
burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they ?

Yes.

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet ?

That's up to you.

Well . . . . .I don't . . . . . I don't care AT ALL !

O.K.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

Write your president this, because he doesn't seem to care anymore [see
bottom quotes of the Decider]:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said,
'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago,
was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's
on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective
is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to
get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's
what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know
whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we
just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

* * *
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime
in Saudi Arabia.


Again, the country from which most of the 9/11
fanatics-terrorists-hijackers came from was our oil buddy Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking
off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed
throat.

Forget any apology coming from the thugs. They consider the invader a big
thug, too. Thus, their wicked ways.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out
and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in mosques.

At the rate which the mosques are being bombed from all sides I doubt that
the insurgents are hiding in them.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their
suicide bombs.

True.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law
instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

????

In the meantime:
When I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi
terrorist to obtain information. Know this . . . . . I
don't care !

Many times the roughing up and killing has been done to non-terrorists, thus
inciting otherwise law-abiding citizens to become insurgents. Nothing is
all black or white. Torture is not condoned (remember) according to our
government. Roughing up is not torture.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
assured. . . . I don't care !

Really?

This sounds like something blow-harder Mr. Limbaugh would assert.
And maybe this is in large part why the so-called Islamo-Terrorism has
increased.
America didn't care about humiliating these humans.
But even Donald Duck Rumsfeld didn't think that this so called
"college-hazing" incident was a good thing.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told
not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
bank. . . . . I don't care !

How compassionate. What would Jesus do?

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is
complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in your heart of hearts. . . . . I don't care !

But if it's the Christian Bible...

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and other times spelled "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and - you
guessed it. . . . . I don't care !

It's still the same horse whatever color or name it has.

RESPONSE TO AN EMAIL

Prepare to be instantly propelled into a world dominated by spying,
tracking, and control as you go behind enemy lines drawn in our own
backyards. I have found that through the research and personal
testimony
of over a dozen internationally distinguished authors, journalists,
doctors,
and military experts that:
"You will begin to understand the massive and
ceaseless control projected onto an unsuspecting populace by a government
that may have finally crossed the line from a representative republic to a
fascist empire."

I have been a student of Orwell and Huxley for many years, and also have
been a close reader and observer of the technology and trends of this
BRAVE NEW WORLD.
I know what you write is true.
My brother works for the
Veterans Administration (if that is its name and not some other name under
Homeland Security!
Speaking about BIG BROTHER!).
He has a rice-sized implant
in his palm and is quite happy to have it there so that his identity is
protected.
He asserts that if a person has nothing to hide then they shouldn't be concerned whether a government knows everything about them.
There will be no privacy at all in the very near future.
We will all be monitored.
Well, almost all.
The illegal aliens will not be monitored so
that we can still dine on our fresh fruits and vegetables.

THE SAME OLD SAME OLD

(Written on November 29, 2002)

INTRODUCTION
no longer a dormant volcano
in this so-called Land of the Free
I am brave enough to erupt and decry
the loss of liberty &
erosion of privacy
in the name of Homeland Security.

Part I
Oh patriotic American
are you questioning
my patriotism?

Part II
Oh America what is thy
Destiny?

Part III
Terror was Hitler's way
to control the
population.

Part IV
Where did the Russians go?
Were they ever coming?
Where is Osama bin Laden?
Where is the oil?
Who owns and controls America?
Why are we really in Afghanistan?

Part V
Can the Internet forestall the
RED WHITE AND BLUE
dictatorship?
Bush's ratings were skyrocketing while
America's freedom was plummeting.
Who will benefit the most in a war
with Iraq?

Part VI
Why did the FBI and CIA stay silent &
passive when both knew days & weeks
(years?)
before 911 about the Twin Towers terrorists
and their pilot training?
WHO IS IN CONTROL?
What are you doing America?

Part VII
THE BUSH DYNASTY
QUE SERA SERA
BUT AMERICA'S
LAST HURRAH
IS STILL IN
THE HANDS OF
ORDINARY
CITIZENS.
BUT SURVEILLANCE
AND WIRE TAPPING
ARE WELL AND
ALIVE
(TV IS MORPHEUS).
THE
TERRORISTS WERE
CREATED AND
ABETTED BY
AMERICAN JINGOISTS
TO CREATE PARANOIA
INSIDE ITS
NEW WORLD ORDER
OIL IS POWER IS MONEY IS WAR
ON PEACE
IN GOD WE TRUST
TO SAVE US
FROM
OURSELVES.
I FEEL THIS IN MY BONES.

Q & A

When it comes to Congress and pork, who's to be trusted?

Who's to be trusted when it comes to Congress and pork? Why, the pigs, of course.

Q & A

Rudy Giuliani says he'd consider increasing U.S. troops in Iraq. Is that the answer?

The more troops that are put into Iraq, the more deaths and insurgency.
When will Rudy and all the other cheerleaders of this lost war wake up?
The war was a mistake and it is a mistake to remain in Iraq.
American soldiers need to come home and protect the American homeland.
They sure can't protect the Iraqi people in its civil war.

WHEN IT COMES TO IRAQ, IS IT REALLY ALL ABOUT THE OIL?

Yes, it is really about oil, but it's also about something else:

The U.S. military wants to have active bases in Iraq from which to send soldiers to be ready for any problems with Iran and Syria...and eventually with China.

America is occupying Iraq for strategic control and influence in the Middle East.

OIL IS THE MOTHER LODE.

Even if most soldiers leave Iraq, there will still be those bases and the George W. Bush Palace (i.e. the new U.S. Embassy).

Now I understand the latest announcement that Iraq will be like our presence in South Korea.

Perpetual occupation.

Q & A

President Bush calls the Senate's no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "meaningless." Is it?

No it isn't meaningless, but President Bush is becoming increasingly meaningless. How can we believe Mr. Bush on anything anymore? If Gonzales is exposed and prosecuted, then what he has said on behalf of Mr. Bush will also be exposed for its mendacity and possible illegality.

I am referring to Mr. Gonzales's stance on the Geneva Convention (its quaintness) and his position on spying...among other things. Mr. Bush needs to keep Alberto the monkey on his back or the whole monkey house will go bananas.

Senator Joe Lieberman says the U.S. should consider attacking Iran. Is he right?

Right Joe, and while we're at it let's bomb Syria and China. Joe the Jingoist has joined Dick the Egotist and our Unitary Executive Decider-in-Chief. Pre-emptive war with Iraq is not enough for them. It is wrong for Iran to be helping Insurgents in Iraq, but it is understandable. Would another country bomb Mexico if it was helping America to remove an occupying country?
For those crazies who want to have more war in the world instead of peace, the world has to rise up on its indifferent haunches and raise its very silent voice and scream bloody murder:
NO MORE WAR!

NO MORE WAR!

But war and militarization of the world is what the good old U.S.A. is so good at.
So, I suppose I should just crawl back into my utopian bubble and accept it that wars will never end...and Iran is next on the chopping block of the NEO CON agenda.

TERRORISTS AND POROUS BORDERS

Porous borders.

Unprotected ports.

Expending precious lives and money in
Iraq instead of putting the focus on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden & Associates.
Bush is not protecting us from nuclear peril.

He has invited and allowed
it.

Immediate deployment of Nuclear detection equipment is needed at ALL ports and borders, airports and train thoroughfares etc.

Securing the safety and security of our nation here is as important as refereeing a civil war in Iraq.

HEART BRAIN AND SOUL

I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC [National Military Command Center], or the White House Situation Room.

Michael Ruppert

"There's problems in Iraq, but it is not a terrible situation."

Dick Cheney

January 24, 2007

***

I'm watching The Situation Room.

Wolf Blitzer is going to tell viewers (after the commercial messages) why Vice President Dick Cheney needs a new battery for his ICD (implanted cardioverter defibrillator).

My question:

When is Dick going to get a new heart and brain?

Throw in a soul, too, that has a conscience!

Mr. Cheney is loathsome.

He lied about Iraq having WMD.

And then retold the lie.

And Dick holds on to this lie to this day.

It's now reported that Cheney is indirectly implicated in the Mafia-like stronghold on the (then) ailing Attorney General to sign off on the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP):

Official: Cheney Urged Wiretaps

Stand-In for Ashcroft Alleges Interference

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday

June 7, 2007

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Cheney allegedly disagreed with Justice officials on the legality of surveillance.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Comey said that Cheney's office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.

Maybe Dick is in the last throes of his own self-delusion.

Forget the battery.

Get this man a new heart, brain and soul.
Got impeachment?

MORE Q & A

Rep. Jerry Nadler says the actions of the Bush administration when it comes to NSA wiretapping are "worse than Watergate." Is he right?

Yes, he is right. The Watergate incident was bad enough, with the Republicans wanting to dig up dirt and uncover what the Democrats were up to, but the Bush administration was digging up dirt on American citizens, in the name of fighting terrorism. Bush went too far, and still is, and he (and Dick) are shameless because they do not think their domestic snooping is wrong (or UNCONSITUTIONAL!). Rep. Nadler echoes the title and the substance of John Dean's book of the same name. Both are right on the money. The amazing thing is that dirt of the shenanigans committed by Cheney, Gonzalez, Rove (hiding somewhere with his big, bald head) and President Bush are not getting much investigating (yet). This cabal of fools and criminals needs a good spanking. Got impeachment?

What's it going to take to bring the Iraq war to an end?

The end to this war will come when the streets of America are again filled with thousands and thousands of citizens, protesting the war, and demanding its end. Unfortunately, it might take a few thousand more American soldiers dying to arrive at that stage. The Democrats can't be trusted to end it. They're thinking about their re-elections. The Iraqi parliament will probably get fired if they demand that the U.S. leave now. Too much has been invested by Bush in his new Embassy, those military bases, and Halliburton's work projects. Poor Iraq...no water...no electricity...no security...no dictator.

Q & A

Do you think President Bush will pardon Scooter Libby?

The Decider will pardon Mr. Libby, and paint over the lies with his pardon brush, but it will not remove the certainty that the Long War President, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were in cahoots to defame and discredit Joseph Wilson, who was trying to tell the world the truth about Mr. Bush’s tragic and lying war. Nobody will pardon George W. Bush for his calculated and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The Democrats will have to raise taxes to pay for Bush's incredible and arrogant folly.

Is President Bush reigniting the Cold War with Russia?

No, President Bush is reigniting Wars with the World. Impeachment now seems to have died a quiet death, and now this urinary president is free to continue to urinate on America and the world with his pre-emptive Iraq war. President Bush is smug and smiling because he knows that he is getting away with murder. And the Republicans who want to fill Bush's bloody shoes will bash President Bush's war (while saying that it was right...just not done right). What an unholy and utterly horrible mess Bush has put us and the world in. But the corporations are happy…but not the thousands and thousands of American and Iraqi families who have lost their loved ones.

Should the Republican candidates for president be openly criticizing President Bush, the head of the party?

Why in the hell not? It's good for them since they believe that by slamming Bush it will help them to get elected. But American voters may be saying to themselves something different: Yep, Bush is a bad president, and we're not going to take a chance on any of you Republicans. Most of the Republican candidates think that Bush's war was the right thing, and they say that they can do a better job of losing it than the current head of the party.

June 6, 2007

US Foments Unrest and Spurns Overtures

Countdown to War on Iran

By ALAIN GRESH

Silently, stealthily, unseen by cameras, the war on Iran has already begun. Many sources confirm that the United States, bent on destabilising the Islamic Republic, has increased its aid to armed movements among the Azeri, Baluchi, Arab and Kurdish ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of the Iranian population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack in which some 20 members of the Revolutionary Guard were killed. According to an American Foundation report (1), US commandos have operated inside Iran since 2004.

President George Bush categorised Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, as the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address in January 2002. Then in June 2003 he said the US and its allies should make it clear that they "would not tolerate" the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran.

It is worth recalling the context in which these statements were made. President Mohammed Khatami had repeatedly called for "dialogue among civilisations". Tehran had actively supported the US in Afghanistan, providing many contacts that Washington had used to facilitate the overthrow of the Taliban regime. At a meeting in Geneva on 2 May 2003 between Javad Zaraf, the Iranian ambassador, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan, the Tehran government submitted a proposal to the White House for general negotiations on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and security, and economic cooperation (2). The Islamic Republic said it was ready to support the Arab peace initiative tabled at the Beirut summit in 2002 and help to transform the Lebanese Hizbullah into a political party. Tehran signed the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on 18 December 2003, which considerably strengthens the supervisory powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but which only a few countries have ratified.

The US administration swept all these overtures aside since its only objective is to overthrow the mullahs. To create the conditions for military intervention, it constantly brandishes "the nuclear threat". Year after year US administrations have produced alarmist reports, always proved wrong. In January 1995 the director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency said Iran could have the bomb by 2003, while the US defence secretary, William Perry, predicted it would have the bomb by 2000. These forecasts were repeated by Israel's Shimon Peres a year later. Yet last month, despite Iran's progress in uranium enrichment, the IAEA considered that it would be four to six years before Tehran had the capability to produce the bomb.

What is the truth? Since the 1960s, long before the Islamic revolution, Iran has sought to develop nuclear power in preparation for the post-oil era. Technological developments have made it easier to pass from civil to military applications once the processes have been mastered. Have Tehran's leaders decided to do so? There is no evidence that they have. Is there a risk that they may? Yes, there is, for obvious reasons.

During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein's regime, in breach of every international treaty, used chemical weapons against Iran, but there was no outcry in the US, or in France, against these weapons of mass destruction, which had a traumatic effect on the Iranian people. US troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is surrounded by a network of foreign military bases. Two neighbouring countries, Pakistan and Israel, have nuclear weapons. No Iranian political leader could fail to be aware of this situation.

How to prevent escalation?

So how is Tehran to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, a move that would start a new arms race in a region that is already highly unstable and deal a fatal blow to the non-proliferation treaty? Contrary to common assumptions, the main obstacle is not Tehran's determination to enrich uranium. Iran has a right to do so under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty but it has always said it was prepared to impose voluntary restrictions on that right and to agree to increased IAEA inspections to prevent any possible use of enriched uranium for military purposes.

The Islamic Republic's fundamental concern lies elsewhere. Witness the agreement signed on 14 November 2004 with France, Britain and Germany, under which Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily on the understanding that a long-term agreement would "provide firm commitments on security issues". Washington refused to give any such commitments and Iran resumed its enrichment programme.

The European Union chose not to pursue an independent line but to follow Washington's lead. The new proposals produced by the five members of the Security Council and Germany in June 2006 contained no guarantee of non-intervention in Iranian affairs. In Tehran's reply to the proposals, delivered in August, it again "suggest[ed] that the western parties who want to participate in the negotiation team announce on behalf of their own and other European countries, to set aside the policy of intimidation, pressure and sanctions against Iran". Only if such a commitment was made could negotiations be resumed.

If not, escalation is inevitable. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president in June 2005 has not made dialogue any easier, given his taste for provocative statements, particularly about the Holocaust and Israel. But Iran is a big country rich in history and there is more to it than its president. There is much tension within the government and Ahmadinejad had severe setbacks both in the local elections and in elections to the Assembly of Experts in December 2006. There are substantial challenges, economic and social, and forceful demands for more freedom, especially among women and young people. Iranians refuse to be regimented and the only strong card the regime has to win their loyalty is nationalism, a refusal to accept the kind of foreign interference suffered throughout the 20th century.

Despite the disaster in Iraq, there is no indication that Bush has given up the idea of attacking Iran. This is part of his vision of a "third world war" against "Islamic fascism", an ideological war that can end only in complete victory. The demonisation of Iran, aggravated by the attitude of its president, is part of this strategy and may culminate in yet another military venture. That would be a disaster, not only for Iran and the Arab world, but for western, especially European, relations with the Middle East.

Translated by Barbara Wilson

Alain Gresh is editor of Le Monde diplomatique and a specialist on the Middle East

[From www.counterpunch.org]

THE REPUBLICAN BLAH-BLAH DEBATE

These guys got away with these hawkish fantasies because they bamboozled the poor evangelicals into believing they would support public morality, and bamboozled poor conservatives into thinking they would uphold small government. Instead, they are hitching their wagons to a multi-trillion dollar quagmire abroad and don't give a rat's ass about evangelical values.

Juan Cole

6/6/07

Most of the ten Republican presidential candidates pulled out the fear-mongering terrorist card.

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were adept at doing this.

Both McCain and Giuliani believe that the Iraq war is right, and they want Americans to elect them so that each can do a better job than the Long War President Decider has done losing it.

McCain parroted the Bush mantra that the Iraq war is tough and hard, but it must be won. McCain also uttered that they will follow us home if the United States leaves Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani accused the Democratic presidential candidates of being in denial about the Iraq war and accused them of being indifferent patsies for Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Giuliani also mirrored the Bush belief that Iraq is now a very big (biggest) terrorist threat.

Self-delusion seems to be epidemic in the Republican party.

The big moment of the evening was when Giuliani was asked to comment on something that the Catholic Church has made about Giuliani’s position on abortion.

A sharp crack of lightning sounded as Giuliani was speaking.

He made a small joke about the possible celestial message coming from the lightning strike(s).

His humorous comment lightened the debate.

Below are my notes on the debate.

These are either actual words or my paraphrasing of what the 10 candidates said.

My own thoughts and comments are in brackets.
Most of the candidates didn’t answer or had trouble giving direct answers to Mr. Blitzer’s question: What was Bush’s biggest mistake? I guess they did not want to completely kill the Republican party.

Mitt Romney:

[Mr. Romney is in denial. There was sufficient evidence that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD. Bush kicked out inspectors before they finished the job.]

You don't take options off the table.

We are not arrogant.

We have resolve.

Immigration plan allows too many illegals to stay in the U.S.

Enforce the current immigration laws.

Permanent right to stay in America is not right.

I believe in God.

I believe in the Bible.

I believe that Jesus is my savior.

I won't distance myself from my church.

Don't change the policy in military on gays in military.

Bush’s biggest mistake: ?

Rudy: The Iraq war was absolutely the right decision.

Can't rule out using nukes on Iran.

Iran is a nuclear threat.

This war is a real war.

The immigration plan has no unifying purpose.

Identity cards are needed.

No uniform database is in the new Immigration bill.

Is opposed to abortion, but believes that a woman should have personal choice.

Apollo type effort on energy.

Oil profits should be invested.

For more nuclear power.

This is not the right time to discuss the issues of policy of sexual preference in the military.

What we're doing in Iraq, if we get it right, will help us.

Military attack of Iraq is one of America's greatest actions.

The Democrats are on the defense against Islamic terrorism---Republicans are on the offense.

Bush's biggest mistake: ?

McCain: The war was O.K. it was just mismanaged.

Rejects that Iraq is Bush's war. It is the nation's war.

The Immigration bill is good.

For English as official language.

"We have to act my friends."

[Mr. McCain thinks all of us are his friends!]

Every American should be exposed to all theories.

The Hand of God was involved.

God loves us.

The curricula should be left to the school boards.

I’m proud of everyone of them (gay or straight). The policy is working.

The Iraq conflict has been mismanaged.

[McCain started to say war, then quickly substituted the word conflict. This is reminiscent of descriptions given to Vietnam.]

The Iraq war is long and hard and tough but I think we can succeed.

McCain is pro-multilingualism.

Bush's biggest mistake: ?

My friends this is a transcendent struggle (titanic struggle against Islamic extremism).

Duncan Hunter: He read the NIE report.

Still talking about training Iraqis.

Use nukes if there is no other way to remove enrichment facilities in Iran.

The Immigration bill is a disaster.

This administration has the case of the slows. Only 11 miles of the 854 mile fence is done.

It is in our interest to help Iraq not become a terrorist country.

Bush's biggest mistake:

The Republican party has to reunite with the American family.

Mike Huckabee: We underestimate the fight in the dog of the Taliban.

Have to talk at times with Iran.

Confront Iran aggressively.

Strong sanctions.

I believe that there is a God.

Current policy is O.K. in military on gays.

The most pressing moral issue is our sanctity and understanding of human life.

Bush's biggest mistake: ?

Tom Tancredo: Says about Iraq:

"It's a republic if you can keep it."

Will we survive as a nation? We are becoming a bilingual nation, and that is not good.

Very disappointed in Bush.

English holds the country together.

Voting instructions should be in English only.

Jim Gilmore: Work with EU allies and talk to Iran.

But having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. All options are on the table.

[Author of the phrase RUDY MCROMNEY.]

Look at all sources of energy.

Pro-nuclear power.

Get all nations involved in energy.

Bush's biggest mistake:

Republicans are the party of principle.

[?]

Sam Brownback: Supports the Immigration bill if internal and external security is enforced.

We are created in the image of God for a specific purpose.

There is a God in the universe who loves us. Faith and science should not be at odds.

Will introduce a bill of dividing Iraq into 3 states.

Bush's biggest mistake: Lack of communication.

Tommy Thompson: Secure the border first.

No amnesty before that.

Said Bush is very honest! [Ugh!!]

Bush's biggest mistake: ?

Ron Paul: [After nearly 30 minutes Mr. Paul was addressed by Wolf Blitzer. Hmm…wonder why?]

States have to pay for illegals.

Illegal immigrants have become the scapegoat.

It was a mistake to go and and it was a mistake to stay in Iraq.

Our security is more threatened by staying. The sooner we come home the better.

Allow people at the local level to decide matters of faith and religion.

Subsidies should not be given to profit-making oil companies.

Foreign policy is designed to protect oil interests by fighting wars.

Current policy is a decent policy ("Don't ask don't tell.").

Immediately stop patrolling the streets of Iraq.

The most pressing moral issue: Pre-emptive war by Bush who rejected the just war of Christianity.

GET LOST! AND FLEETING EXPLETIVES

My swearing is not fleeting.

I constantly use bad words.

I don’t like to hear others use foul language.

How can this be if I use the same foul language?

I guess it means that I know that swearing is not appropriate.

But it’s necessary.

When I cut myself should I say…?

How wonderful!

I do not swear just to swear.

My swearing has a purpose.

It releases stress.

Kudos to the recent court decision that defends the right of people to swear.

THE DEMOCRATIC BLAH-BLAH DEBATE

All Democratic candidates were confident.

John Edwards tried to be more assertive, trying to sound presidential.

But the choir-boy countenance is not so presidential.

Dennis Kucinich probably had the most ethical and correct observations and recommendations, but the corporate money machine of our Pentagon-based government will not tolerate such honesty.

Remember what happened to Jesus, Socrates and Martin Luther King?

Bill Richards may have gone a bit too far when he said that China might not see us at the Olympics if Chinese leadership did not put more pressure on the Darfur government. Richards retained his status as a former servant in the Clinton administration, and gave rational responses to the Immigration issue: More security through more border patrols and more technical surveillance.

Barack Obama was compelling when he pointed out that he was against the Iraq war from the get-go.

Senator Mike Gravel from Alaska was put at the left end of the group of candidates. Mr. Gravel has nothing to gain or lose, and gave blunt responses, pulling no punches, even alleging that the Democrats (not just Bush) were responsible for the Iraq invasion.

Hillary Clinton was shining and pretty. She was explicit and without an eye blink when she said that the Iraq war was Bush's war.

Chris Dodd was polite and avuncular.

Joe Biden became a bulldog, and his anger may chill the warmth that voters might have had for his candidacy.

Except for when Dennis Kucinich said that he would get rid of all nuclear weapons (yes, and get rid of the moon while you’re at it), none of the candidates were asked about an emerging new cold war with Russia, or what to do about nuclear proliferation. The nuclear War Machine seems to be a sacred cow.

DEATH REFUGEES AND ANOTHER COLD WAR

The Bush administration is creating refugees, not helping them.

Until Mr. Bush ends his occupation of Iraq, the numbers of refugees will rise, and so will the decimation of the civilian population.

Nobody wants to admit the truth that a half million Iraqis have already died in their "liberated" country.

With numbers like that, though, refugees stay on the back burner.

Get out of Iraq sooner---not later.

***

Condoleeza Rice likes to see and hear what she wants to see and hear.

She and the Long War Decider President are real good at this.

Remember when Ms. Rice saw mushroom clouds?

Although Russian president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is not exactly a liberal, nor his regime very democratic, some actions of the U.S. are not exactly an incentive for creating good relations.

The Bush regime does what it wants to do with very few concerns whether others like it or not.

Rice is wrong.

There will always be an unthawed cold war between Russia and America unless we have leaders who are less bent on self-delusion and self-destruction.