Three Major Views on Hamas Win

Lots of interesting viewpoints out there on the Hamas win, but most still seem to break down into one of three categories:

1. Hamas is a terrorist organization that will always be hell bent on the destruction of Israel. Hamas's rise to power is just more bad news for the already fragile two-state solution.

2. Winning a place in government will force Hamas to take a more moderate position in order to ensure the continuing flow of international aid, and to negotiate on behalf of its constituents, most of whom want to live in peace in a country of their own.

3. We have no idea how this will turn out, and we have no way of knowing how a Hamas-led Palestinian government will affect Israel's March elections -- or anything else, for that matter.

As you could probably tell from my last post, I tend to take the third view. I'd love to give you my unabashed opinion on which way this will go, but I'm torn. I hope the Palestinians will follow the Irish model; I fear that with the Israelis much more likely to use helicopter gunships against their troublesome neighbor than the British ever were, the reactionary tendencies of Hamas could be dangerously amplified now that they're in a position of power.

The one thing that seems a safe prediction (but hopefully isn't) is that the Hamas win is unlikely to be good for Ariel Sharon's nascent Kadima party -- I find it had to believe voters would be more willing to support middle-of-the-road political leadership two months after Palestinians voted in a party best known for its extremism. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

I'm putting myself of the sidelines of this Debate until things get clearer, so here's what the Washington Post editorial page had to say.

Ambivablog, being characteristically ambivalent, first said, "Imagine the apocalyptic mood in Israel, pinned between Ahmadinejad and 'Hamastan'," but later noted that "in the first post-election polls, Israelis favored negotiating with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, 48 to 43" and the Israeli markets seemed only minimally affected by the election results.

Debater D. is trying to be optimistic, and I'm guessing it was that optimism that prompted this insightful comment: "Hamas can now no longer hide behind a Fatah-led PA. ...Now, they are the legitimate head of the PA, if they continue to launch attacks, international aid is going to dry up and Gaza is going to become even more of a hellhole. You can keep people going on hatred for only so long, but when everything starts falling down around your ears, the people will hold you accountable."

British blog MK-UK pointed to a Jonathan Steele piece in the Guardian arguing that "Hamas's triumph in Wednesday's Palestinian elections is the best news from the Middle East for a long time." Steele wrote, "Providing a forum to freely express hopes and fears, debate policy and seek agreed solutions is, after all, what democracy is about. ...The first watchword is caution. Applaud the process but don't take issue with the result. While the dust settles and Hamas works out its own priorities for government, Europeans should calmly analyse why Hamas got so much support."

Here at The Debate, patriot1957 also encourages everyone to try to understand the Palestinians' choice. "[W]hen extremism becomes mainstream its time to start checking our premises. If we want to deal with this effectively we need to understand why this behavior seems rational to the mainstream people."

Many things contributed to the defusing of the IRA, but when some attention was paid to what the people (vs the extremists) really wanted, things got better. They didn't get everything the IRA wanted, but once they got enough the support for the terrorism dried up. Maybe there's a lesson there. Maybe people feel Hamas is the only one listening right now. ...It would seem not really anyone is on the side of the average Palestinian except Hamas. Maybe it's time for someone else to start listening to them. People with good jobs and middle class incomes and roads and schools and water and power and bright futures are less likely to find Hamas rational."

Craig Persel quotes officials worried that the Palestinian result will only give other Middle Eastern countries, specifically Egypt, more fodder for their assertion that the people can't be trusted with truly democratic, un-fixed elections. Jazzman's analysis, on the other hand, suggests the democratic election of extremists might not be such a bad thing, as "radical moves more often get the pendulum moving in an opposite direction."

Perhaps even as extremists are voted in through democratic elections in the Middle East, the stage is being set for a swing back to moderation in subsequent elections. As long as those democratic systems are preserved and international observers keep the voting honest, the people will always have the ability to kick out the radicals once they realize that their radicalism doesn't help them personally any more than the previous regime did.

(Read on for a few personal responses to individual Debaters.)

Assorted notes to my Debater friends:

SandyK -- yes, my original post title did end with a parenthetical (Yikes.) There is an editor of the opinion blogs -- affectionately dubbed "Hal the Schemer" over at Achenblog -- and I'm guessing he's the one who chopped the parenthetical. (Hal is terrific, really cares about opinion journalism and open interaction with readers, and no, he is not scheming up ways to edit our entries covertly!) I'm certain that cutting the end of the headline was not some devious move on his part. My guess is that when he got the time to take a look at the post (he's one seriously busy guy) he probably thought that last word just didn't flow well with the rest of the heading, or more likely, that it didn't really fit the text of the post since I didn't take a strong position either way.

While I'm a real stickler when it comes to journalistic ethics, I don't think yanking one word that didn't fit the rest of the post was an example of an ethical lapse on anyone's part. One thing about blogging is that often the posts go up and are edited live -- we don't have the luxury of a 12-hour delay and a team of copy editors, as writers for the print edition do. That means that sometimes small changes are made after a post has already been published.

As a frequent Debater, you've undoubtedly noticed that when I make a genuine mistake in a post and a Debater points it out, I acknowledge it, thank the person who caught it, and make any necessary fixes. You've pointed out that "(Yikes.)" was once part of the headline, and I openly acknowledge that is true. (Just to be perfectly accurate, please note that it was "Yikes [period]" -- not "Yikes [exclamation point]".) I won't be restoring the word though, only because the edit made sense -- "yikes" really didn't reflect the content of the post.

But goodness gracious, don't ask me about time stamps -- I was asleep when the edit was made. Remember, I'm in Australia, so I wrote the post, published it, and then promptly went to bed for the night. I'm something like 15 and a half hours ahead of Washington time right now. It's an entirely different day here! I won't even know when this post was written until I see it go up and it gets a time stamp. :)

Thanks to ErrinF for defending my right to vacation. One day perhaps I will fully exercise that right!

To my dear Lonemule: We get it. Your comments on several Debate threads have made it perfectly clear that you don't like this blog. That's fine; I'm totally cool with that. But for someone who thinks The Debate is a waste of time, you sure seem to waste a lot of time here.

And to Joe, the guy who interrupted my vacation with an e-mail about how boring he thought my Eurasia post was and demanding that I post some revealing photos in order not to lose him as a reader: Your note was good for a laugh, if nothing else. I have no idea if you've ever posted a comment on this blog, but if the content of your e-mail is any indication, the Debate will probably manage to squeak by without your insights. (For those who are curious, Joe says he's "a boob man." I believe him when he says he's a man, and I would certainly agree that he is a boob.)

Finally, to the rest of the Debaters who've added so much to our recent discussions, I just want to say thanks. I love reading your analysis and watching you match wits with one another, almost always in an intelligent and respectful manner. Thank you for consistently giving me -- and each other -- new ideas to ponder.

I'll be back in the office late next week (probably in a jetlag-induced stupor) and look forward to biting into some more meaty issues then.

By Emily Messner |  January 27, 2006; 11:27 AM ET  | Category:  Your Take
Previous: And the Winner Is ... Hamas! | Next: SOTU: Where's Katrina?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Let us hope and pray that all parties enter serious diplomatic discussions to: 1) respect one another, 2) understand one another, and 3) forgive one another so we can see a brighter future for all peoples in the twentyfirstcentury.

Posted by: Impeach Bush | January 27, 2006 12:53 PM

Thanks, Emily, for all the hard work!

I truly believe that, 20 years from now, when Israel and Palestine have finally achieved peace (I'm an optimist, clearly), historians will look back on this election as a turning point, and not just for Palestinians, but for the whole world. I am cognizant of the fact that this is a truly delicate situation, one where every word must be carefully weighed. But I think that, every action, or every failure to act, that Hamas makes has the possibility to fundamentally change the debate about terrorism in the Muslim world.

If Hamas actually decides that, in order to do the best job for Palestinians, they must renounce violence against Israel and work diligently on a complete and lasting peace, for that is the best way to ensure a better way of life for their people, that would have a HUGE effect on terrorism - just imagine Ahamdinejad's press conference after that! - basically suck all the life out of extremism.

But if Hamas maintains that the only way to secure Palestine's future is to blow Israel off the map, all the international aid will dry up, and Palestinians will know that terrorism isn't the answer - it's making their lives worse. A subsequent election would blow Hamas out of office, and (hopefully, I never underestimate man's ability to self-delude) will give Muslims pause about the effectiveness of fundamentalism.

What I think is key here is that the US and Europe give Hamas plenty of room to decide their path. It's vital that they give Hamas the chance to succeed, or fail, on its own, thereby avoiding the image that, should they fail, that the US and Europe wouldn't be to blame. Again, they may try to blame the West anyway, but actions speak louder than words - recognize that Hamas is democratically elected, maintain careful relations with them, and always let them make the first move.

Posted by: JK | January 27, 2006 12:58 PM

Hamas has two choices... provoke a war with Israel... and watch other mideastern states stand by while Israel has its way, or back off its position that Israel must be destroyed... in stages... nuanced... to be able to build a palestinian state in cooperation with Israel. I think Hamas will choose the latter. But we can't expect anything soon.

Posted by: michaelsi | January 27, 2006 12:59 PM

i am disappointed of wining Hamas. because they must choose to stop answering Israel attacks and join in political movments. Voters need peace and if Hamas or Fath can achive this peace, they elect them. it's the first time for Hamas and because of a tradition in middilesst, radical parties always negotiate wtih their enemies and i hope the independent palestinian goverment would be create.
Hamas also can be devided to two parties sa north Irland Army did: a military force and a political branch. may new Jery Admas come from Gaza,,, time show us.

Posted by: seyedali.p | January 27, 2006 01:19 PM

So does the fact that they are now in power in the government make the 'terrorists' in fact the 'army' ? I would think that it would put them on a par with Isreal & the US! Is Israel or the US going to renounce violence or Give up their nuclear programs or nuclear WMDS?

Sharon's Terror Child
http://www.counterpunch.org/hanania01182003.html
How the Likud Bloc Mid-wifed the Birth of Hamas

1. Likud is a terrorist organization that will always be hell bent on the destruction of Palestine. Bibi Netanyahoo's rise to power is just more bad news for the already fragile two-state solution.

2. Winning a place in government will force Likud AND Hamas to take a more moderate position in order to ensure the continuing flow of US aid, and to negotiate on behalf of its constituents, most of whom want to live in peace in a country of their own.

3. We have no idea how this will turn out, and we have no way of knowing how a Likud-led Zionist Government or the Hamas-led Palestinian government will affect Israel's March elections -- or anything else, for that matter.

Posted by: Disarm Israel's WMDS | January 27, 2006 02:31 PM

What in bloody hell does a Hamas-led PA have to do with the US or Israel giving up WMDs? Are you equating the professional soldiers of the IDF (who RESPOND to attacks, not INITIATE them) to fanatics who revel in blowing up women and children in Pizza parlors and bus stops?

Does your moral relevance have no sense of shame?

Posted by: D. | January 27, 2006 02:49 PM

Emily: points well taken. Just wanted to give a heads up, since there's some hair trigger folks out there just itching for another, "WP is censoring...SEE??!!" event (same folks who know darn well site owners have the right to edit any entry. Ask DU/KoS how fast they ban posters and remove entries in comparison).

But the timestamp thingee does need to be revisited, before it'll cause another blowout. If an admin did that on a blog/forum, it would cause a stink. MSM, even worse (I don't hint of another "Rathergate" reaction lightly). Takes just minutes online to organize a cyber lynch mob.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 27, 2006 02:55 PM

No to know or to predict seems to be the common sense way to deal with the Hamas election win. The Hamas position vis a vis Israel can be beneficial or harmful to the Palestinians. Either position can be justified at this time. Events yet to happen will determine what will occur. Until then each side will be forced to be cautious and restrain from taking action that can cause more harm than good.

Posted by: Eugene Warren | January 27, 2006 03:15 PM

No to know or to predict seems to be the common sense way to deal with the Hamas election win. The Hamas position vis a vis Israel can be beneficial or harmful to the Palestinians. Either position can be justified at this time. Events yet to happen will determine what will occur. Until then each side will be forced to be cautious and restrain from taking action that can cause more harm than good.

Posted by: Eugene Warren | January 27, 2006 03:15 PM

D,
I agree that Disarm's statement is out there and off base,but I disagree with your statement:
"Are you equating the professional soldiers of the IDF (who RESPOND to attacks, not INITIATE them)."

There have been several cases in which people have come forward with stories of Israeli soldiers initiating fights, whether physically or verbally. One such example is detailed in Chris Hedge's, "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning," in which Israeli soldiers try to provoke unarmed children into conflict. And does anyone have a link to the story regarding an Israeli soldier who was reprimanded for forcing a man to play the violin to cross at a gate? If I recall, he was reprimanded not for humiliating the man, but because it was reminiscent of the German commander who forced a Jewish man to play the violin at a concentration camp in WWII. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1361755,00.html

Between stories like that and running over civilians with Bulldozers (regardless of if they are palestinian, british, or american) I think it is hardly truthful to assert that Israeli forces do nothing to instigate conflict.

Posted by: Freedom | January 27, 2006 03:22 PM

Freedom - Again, perhaps I was a little too brash in my statement. I certainly do not doubt that the IDF are blameless...there are bad apples in every bunch I'm afraid. The conflict is brutal and ugly but I take offense when I encounter folks who just so casually paint the whole situation with the brush of moral relativism and, of course, throw the US into the brew as well.

I cannot, and will not, ever view a cause that advocates the deliberate targeting of innocents as "noble".

Posted by: D. | January 27, 2006 03:42 PM

Nor will I. Please don't believe I'm trying to justify terrorist attacks.

However, as a mind experiment, it is interesting to consider whether these terrorists actually percieve their victims as 'innocent' or as deserving of attack. It is a completely different mindset from a people with completely different values and morals, and I am unsure if I can truly put myself in their shoes to consider the situation from their perspective. From the outside looking in, I can only come to the same conclusion as you.

Posted by: Freedom | January 27, 2006 03:52 PM

A good point. So then the question becomes, for a people (and I'll assume here) essentially indoctrinated since birth to view the Israeli (man/woman/child, soldier/civilian) as the enemy, where there is no distinction made between combatant and noncombatant, can it be reasonably expected that these beliefs can be changed so that a chance at peace is even plausible? Or are any concessions made by Israel just taken as a sign of weakness and provide a rationale to continue their attacks? Will the Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, ever renounce violence or is the image of Jew=Enemy so ingrained that peace will always be unattainable?

Posted by: D. | January 27, 2006 04:02 PM

maybe I already answered my own question. Sigh...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1536576

Posted by: D. | January 27, 2006 04:22 PM

My thought to all this is let Israel built its wall to protect against terrorists. Have Israel get totally out of the West Bank and Gaza. And then if Hamas contiues its terrorist activities, let Israel kill them with impunity. Killing innocent cilivian purposely should not be tolerated. If the purpose of the attack is to kill unarmed woman and children that is evil.

Posted by: Right100 | January 27, 2006 04:26 PM

D.,
The questions you raise are difficult to answer. I believe that these beliefs can be changed, but it will take a great deal of time, and most likely outside influence to regulate a 'fair' deal. By some, concessions from either side will be seen as justification for past actions and as a weakness that can be again exploited. Those on both sides that crave peace will see concessions as a blessing.
The problem is that this problem needs to be addressed not from the view that Palestinians are the only deviants, but that there are deviants on both sides that must be reprimanded. Just as I have met palestinians who want peace and have horror stories of mistreatment by border guards and Israeli citizens, I have met Israelis that believe all their actions are the will of God, even those that break UN rules and regulations (occupying territories, etc.) And I have met members of both groups that fit the media's stereotypes (Its interesting to note that coverage of the palestinian/israeli conflict is taken from a completely different stance outside of the US).

My best suggestion is to press 'reset.' Barring that, attempt to work with each group to find what they consider fair and try to avoid disaster while doing so. I know its not the best of strategies, but then again, nothing thats been tried already has seemed to work.

Posted by: Freedom | January 27, 2006 04:30 PM

I'm with D on all of this.

Israel and the Jews are NOT to blame.
Muslim's controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 19 years, and fostered terrorism, not democracy, not economic freedom, not absorption into Jordan or other Muslim countries, not anything constructive.

They have an election, and what's the first thing they do afterwards? Fight each other, shoot at each other, riot in the streets.

Does anyone legitametly wonder why Israel may be a little "gun shy" about "negotiating" with them?

Posted by: the rest of the story... | January 27, 2006 04:34 PM

Addendum:
When I say 'fair' deal, I mean a deal that is truly fair. To date, almost all deals proposed to Arafat or palestinians have been laughable. When you look at the substance of these deals, you find that most/all resources remain in Israeli hands and that very little truly changes, as the lands ahave been divided, airports banned, and strict regulations enforced. I'd make a comparison to Puerto Rico and their stance with America, but sadly, palestinians wouldn't even have that much freedom or power.

Posted by: Freedom | January 27, 2006 04:36 PM

Emily, did you make it to the Great Barrier Reef yet? Better make that trip worth it because you're going to feel like you've been dragged behind a truck for about the next two weeks. It would be criminal to go to Oz and not see the reef.

"I truly believe that, 20 years from now, when Israel and Palestine have finally achieved peace (I'm an optimist, clearly),"

That your are. How many millenia have they been fighting there exactly? I am much less optimistic about peace in anyone's lifetime. But I do have a personal interest in not letting this set off WWIII.

I read a good book about the ME that pinned all outcomes on control of Jerusalem. Forget the name. It was interesting but a bit hard for an American to really feel.

The US a country where nothing is more than a few centuries old and progress usually trumps sentimentality in public works. If the temple mount was in the US there would probably be a McDonald's on it. The Holy Land has always had an "a long time ago in a land far far away" feel to those of us who haven't been there. On the other hand, I do not have to touch the temple mount or stand on the ground of the stable in Bethleham for my faith to be alive to me. Further, in the US we do not impose death as the penalty for vandalizing/desecrating a place of worship, we don't bulldoze their parent's homes or offer their families money if they die in the attempt. I live within walking distance of two synagogues, a mosque, and four churches (Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist and Presbyterian). Its no wonder I don't find it diminishing to my personal faith or the history of my religion for another branch of the descendents of Abraham to have built their style of worship on the sacred places in the Holy Land.

But I have to accept that a lot of people with a different history and different culture do feel some exclusive religious right to that land and some personal stake in keeping others from desecrating their religious land. And they feel so stronly about it that there is no compromise, and no right for the other to exist.

My question is: is the "exclusive rights" group representative of the common people of Palestine (and the ME) or just of the extremists who have flouished as an escape valve for otherwise oppressed peoples of the ME? Is Israel a convenient common enemy fostered by repressive governments, or is there really no two state solution possible even if everyone had freedom and a homeland and a middle class life? Maybe we're going to start finding out soon.

People in the Crusades didn't have nuclear weapons. If we find that even free peoples are not willing to compromise on a two state solution, then the US needs to rethink its role in the ME. If the US switched over to hybrid cars and recycled even 25% of the recyclables that we put in our landfills ever year we actually wouldn't need any oil from the ME within a decade (Canada and Venezuala are actually our biggest suppliers, followed by Saudi Arabia and then way farther down the list Iraq, Kuwait and UAE). So if we were free of oil interests in the ME how many think we would be willing to put boots on the ground to defend Israel (well, outside of President Liebermann)? Because as far as I know, we have never sent troops to defend Israel in her wars - we defend our oil interests and we help Israel in other ways, but so far as her right to exist there, she's so far been on her own.

If we were free of ME oil interests and the ME was no longer under the thumb of repressive governments that WE helped get and stay in power, would we go to war to defend Israel's right to exist?

INtersting question. I suspect the US would decide its NOT worth torching off WWIII in a fight between the heirs over who inherits the family home and religious artifacts.

Posted by: patriot1957 | January 27, 2006 05:31 PM

Freedom, I think the deal Clinton brokered gave Arafat a lot.

Posted by: patriot1957 | January 27, 2006 05:34 PM

In a period of stretched U.S. federal budgets, one item will surely be an approved exception: More support for Israel's military and defense capabilities. Maybe it even needs to be a checkoff box on form 1040.

Posted by: On the plantation | January 27, 2006 05:35 PM

When I was young, very young, I used to take glee whenever the IRA struck. I don't know why, I guess it was my Irish heritage or some other bullshit like that. For many years now I have thought of the IRA as scum, the very base hateful group that will never give up, because they actually would rather fight than live in peace. I am ashamed that I ever had any compassion for these assholes.

I feel the same way about these terrorist sponsoring jerkoffs over in the ME. If they would divert half the energy they expend hating to doing something constructive, maybe they could wade out of the cesspool they have created.

No Emily, not number 2 or 3.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 27, 2006 05:36 PM

What has gotten me this morning was the video footage from CNN (not Fox) of the Hamas folks going through a broken window of a government office window.

That smacks more of anarchy, forget democracy.

Can folks here or even in Europe consider it civilized for a winning party to crash the gates of a government building, break the windows, then climb through them?

If they ever plan to become a legit party, they need to act like one. Even Muslims have standards of decency, so theres no excuse to act like a redux of WTO anarchists.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 27, 2006 06:36 PM

Right100 wrote:
===========================================
"And then if Hamas contiues its terrorist activities, let Israel kill them with impunity."
===========================================

If they're climbing through government offices via windows they broke, ah, they'll continue their thuggery.

Did they even bother to consider who'll have to PAY for the mess they made???? If they're going to start governing they'll have to learn anything broken is fixed/paid via taxes (something they should've known about long before the election). And who's going to be paying those taxes? The very people so poor they're living in slums.

Folks may hate Arafat, but at least folks knew his stances and corruption (he was contained). Can't say that now with this new batch of buffoons.

Emily you may have optimism for those thugs reforming themselves, but 2000 years of religious/ethnic infighting says reform isn't going to be seen in our lifetime (same can be said fo Russia too). Thugs have to be re-educated (if they can be trained to do more than bombing civilians), and that takes at generation.

SandyK
Who *Despises* terrorists with a capital "D"

Posted by: SandyK | January 27, 2006 06:50 PM

I share your mocking of poor Joe. You are a gal, so why would you take photos of the babes of Phuket when you could be doing an interesting profile of Aussie lifeguards? Plus the Washington Post is so high in the pantheon as to avoid purience.....though there always is Newsweek..

I'll await a respectable WP male journalist like Woodward or Charles Babington to research and publish "Down Under: Gals in Thongs at the Billabongs - A Photojournal Essay".

Hamas? Well, that isn't so funny. All the money the Euroweenies, Americans, and yes, the Israelis poured into the PA and Arafat disappeared into a rat hole of corruption, cronyism and 5-Star Parisian hotels and Swiss bank accounts and so they lost power. They deserved to lose power. The Fascists of Italy arose in similar circumstances, but only ended up screwing Italy far worse in the end than their corrupt incompetent predecessors ever would have.

Hamas now has to be taking lessons from Hezbollah. Hating the Zionists isn't enough. Now, they must govern well and for the long term.

Frankly, due to long Zionist oppression, control of the utilities and roads PLUS the Islamoid Death Cult that places HATE at the peak of what Palestinian politics is all about, I doubt Rudy Giuliani could make it work.

My guess is the lives of Palestinians will get even worse. The Zionists will use violence and the refusal of Hamas to be the euphemistical, whimsical "partner in peace" in any way since they are far more honest than the lying toad Arafat about Israel - the Israelis will use that as the excuse they were waiting for to build the whole fence, complete their land grabs, draw borders, and clobber Hamas strongpoints. Hamas will be unable to resist the urge to lob mortars and rockets on the "Jew pigs who must all die".

Then the Israelis, whether you support them or not - finally get payback. Payback they have in a way been waiting 14 years for. Every family there has someone or knows someone whose family had a member butchered or wounded by the Islamoids and, unlike America which was free to go after Islamoids in Afganistan after 9/11 with full military force - politics so far has restrained the Israelis to "measured" responses. If Islamoids don't hold Jewish civilian life sacred, why should the lives of civilians around and cheering the Islamoids be worth a plugged nickel? Geneva is a 2-way street. Stand by for some Israeli 2,000 "send them all to Allah" bombs coming soon.

The other barriers Hamas faces are: (1) what to do with the 100,000 PA flunkies on the pad that won't start a civil war; (2) How to fix poor relations Hamas has with Egypt and Jordan and KSA so those countries don't support the economic throttling of Palestinians once the Israelis clamp down when Hamas launches it's promised violence; (3) How to keep the money spigot turned on from the Euroweenies, Oil Arabs, Iranians, Americans, and the 50 million they get from the Israelis for taxes the Jews collect still on Pals. When violence starts, those money flows may be cut off, even from Arabs and Euroweenies because the PA snakeoil salesmen of superb breeding, fluent French, and 30 years of solid lobbying contacts may decide it's time to retire and enjoy the 14 million they socked away in Switzerland or the Caymans...

But, as Messner said, this is all uncertain. It is too early to say how this might play out. 1,000 theories are in play, hopefully reduced to 100 in a month, 12 in a year, and 3 by the end of Year 2.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 27, 2006 07:36 PM

How shall I explain the Hamas "democracy" phenomenon to you? Try these analogies: At the conclusion of World War II the American nation bought peace by funding the regeneration of industry in the conquered states. Real Outcome: the US car industry is now owned / controlled or outsold by the conquered nations. Moral: what is good for the goose may strangle the gander. Moral lesson # two: in order to put Communist China on the road to capitalism and democracy the US and the free peoples of the West pumped trillions into the Chinese economy. Real Outcome: China is on the way to becoming the first wealthy communist super power, displacing the US and Europe and changing forever the economies of the West. Lesson @ 3: the Free World gave a certain Mideastern nation a democratic vote in order to change the direction and goals of its murderous terrorists. Real Outcome: the terrorists figured out how to exploit the fatal weakness of democracy (the most convincing liars win) and are still determined to destroy Israel. (Sorry, that's our focus example, isn't it?)

The Moral? Mixing socio / political / cultural truisms is like mixing paint: one color does some strange things when you mix it with other, different ones. You cannot transplant one culture's certainties into another, strange culture.

All clear now?

Posted by: Rick Clarke | January 27, 2006 10:02 PM

Chris Ford wrote:
The other barriers Hamas faces are: (1) what to do with the 100,000 PA flunkies on the pad that won't start a civil war; (2) How to fix poor relations Hamas has with Egypt and Jordan and KSA so those countries don't support the economic throttling of Palestinians once the Israelis clamp down when Hamas launches it's promised violence; (3) How to keep the money spigot turned on from the Euroweenies, Oil Arabs, Iranians, Americans, and the 50 million they get from the Israelis for taxes the Jews collect still on Pals.

Key points Chris, very key points. It's the younger flunkies I wonder most about, where the passion and energy are. I can't tell if all this shouting, jumping about, and trashing things is driven by loss of power or the specter of the unemployment line. Do they get religion and join Hamas, or are they imbued with the stuff of opposition? I don't have a clue myself. Does Hamas have the wherewithal to disarm them, as Israel demands of its PA negotiating partner? So nicely ironic, isn't it?

Hamas is pretty hemmed in by circumstances. The neighborhood isn't going to be anxious to financially support a lot of trouble making with so many US military assets in the region and they would probably have to develop a pretty good pipeline to money in Iran or Syria. Israel's weak point is their extended and scattered West Bank settlements. They will have resource problems defending them all in a no talk/no hope environment. Hamas may or may not have an internal problem depending on how much Islam and how quickly they lay it on the more secular oriented population.

BB, for the first time in my observation, didn't sound real sure of himself in the two interviews I caught. The best he could come up with was a weak, "I told you this would happen". But I'm not going to be surprised if the Israeli's don't have their own internal problems coming. The Israeli Arabs are themselves getting, how might I say, cheeky maybe?

I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing if the world just stepped back and left both of them to slowly and miserably spin in the wind and glare at each other over the wall for a couple of years. A stalemate isn't a stalemate until you recognize it.

Posted by: Cayambe | January 28, 2006 12:07 AM

For years Hamas influenced much of what Yassir Arrafat did during his leadership of Palestine. Since they weren't ostensibly running the show they could pull the political strings while they conducted terrorist operations when it suited them. Isreal would respond incident by incident, but they never moved in to completely crush Hamas because they couldn't do it without crushing the Palestinian Authority at the same time.
Then Hamas was perceived as separate from the Palestinian Authority and the international fallout would have hurt Isreal too much.

Now that Hamas has come out from behind the curtain to visibly take the reins they won't dare try any military action against Isreal. President Bush has already said we will stop all foreign aid if Hamas continues to call for the destruction of Isreal and continues terrorist operations. If Hamas wants to succeed politically they will have to deal with Isreal,the US, and other nations on a civil basis. About the worst they can do and still survive is to renounce the violence and stop calling for the destruction of Isreal so they can keep getting the foreign aid, but continue pretending to engage in the peace process with no intention of ever signing an agreement.

It certainly seemed that at the end of the Clinton Administration when Arrafat refused to sign the proposed agreement that contained the best terms Palestine can ever hope to get, that Hamas was pulling the strings to kill the deal. I think we're going to see Hamas try to walk a tightrope of doing what it takes to convince the rest of the world they are no longer terrorists, but not actually try to make peace with Isreal. Its only in the continuation of the strange limbo they've thrived in for so many years that they will be able to hold on to power. By taking political control they've painted themselves into a corner where they can't use the tool of violence any more without severe consequences to themselves and the people they now represent. If they stop using violence, Isreali retaliations diminish, and over time the pressure for a peace agreement grows from within to remove the onerous barriers to travel and separation of families.

The alternative is that Hamas can't control all their members, violence continues, and they lose foreign aid, trigger severe retaliation from Isreal and conditions worsen for the Palestinians to the point where Hamas is rejected.

I choose to be an optimist and believe that the lure of being the saviors (heros?) of the Palestinians and having a long term hold on power will be great enough and they will have enough discipline within the ranks to create conditions where peace is attained in spite of themselves.

Posted by: DK | January 28, 2006 01:48 AM


All along the watchtower the sentries stirred, the commander paused and lamented:

"MMMmmmm, methinks terrorism does not a democracy make."

The diplomat responded and so composed:

"To "live free, or die" , or "suicide" is not the question... but rather whether the vote beget state sponsoring of terror...for to recognize or not to recognize...begs this pondering of which gloating Hamas decideth."

"indeed." the commander noted, "but strings of mullahs pulled in hate, will no decision make by them, but will for US!"

- HAMAS, 3rd act

Posted by: Eric Jette | January 28, 2006 01:59 AM

DK wrote:
===========================================
"I choose to be an optimist and believe that the lure of being the saviors (heros?) of the Palestinians and having a long term hold on power will be great enough and they will have enough discipline within the ranks to create conditions where peace is attained in spite of themselves."
===========================================

When they can't even control their gangs breaking government buildings and firing rifles downtown, ah, they don't have the discipline to get coalitions in order.

They don't understand the rule of Law, and that can't be taught to sociopaths (which bombers and terrorists are).

The trust for Hamas making good is the broken trust in Asia over Japan. It's been 60 years since WWII, and they're not forgetting. Don't expect a longer hot bed of terrorism and mischief to be settled in our lifetime.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 28, 2006 08:33 AM

Condi Rice said "you can't have one foot in power and one foot in terror"

Was she speaking to:

(a) Hamas

(b) George Bush

(c) the Zionists

The "news" department is reporting that the world is "shocked" that Hamas could have won a landslide election victory. Nobody saw it coming. They're just damn dumbfounded!
I've never been one to really think that the major media news was run and controlled by Jews or Zionits, but the reporting on this story has brought out what is at very least a strong bias in viewpoint towards the Judeo-Christian perspective. Muslims are portrayed as criminal killers of innocents, and some of them are, but so are some of the Western militaries. So, Palestinians elected a radical religious organization bent on destroying Israel and establishing a theocracy, and the major media is mystified. They're shocked, and they are acting shocked so all the sheep will act shocked with them, when all they really need is a clue.

The Iraqis didn't exactly elect a southern Republican, either. The administration we have in the USA was "elected" in 2000, and it would be fair to decribe them as religious zealots with an agenda of war and theocracy. What's so shocking, about what the Palestinians did it?

Posted by: F THE ZIONISTS | January 28, 2006 08:36 AM

if you dont negotiate, then you never have to settle.
put em at the table, call their bluff.

Posted by: Bernie | January 28, 2006 09:28 AM

Remember that it's always easy to point a finger at the other guy and shake our heads (or worse). Much more difficult is to look at ourselves with objectivity. I hear many voices shouting slogans like: "traitor", "America-bashers", and worse when (just in this blog alone) someone suggests that the United States or its leadership may have a fault or might seek better avenues of action. And was someone arguing that Palestinians were not part of the human race? Was that an someone over 16 on this site? We are human beings, we seek peace, justice, a better world.
Every government is at best an approximation of the dreams, goals, and desires of its people. Somethime, here in the U. S. we get the two pretty well lined up. Today, with the nation essentially 50%-50% on many significant issues, the government and people's will (in our loser-take-all democracy) do not accord very well. In fledgling democratic states, with no tradition of enduring such times, these poor alignments between popular will and government objectives can be even starker than what we know. Yet that doesn't change the ultimate desires of people everywhere: peace and harmony, a future for children, indications that things are improving. Regardless of the system and leadership, we must consistently understand that people everywhere are like us.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 28, 2006 10:47 AM

Emily,

So good to hear that your soaking up the sun..... Hopefully, the warm weather (and a high fiber diet) will help you improve your disposition.

Now, how 'bout dealing with (what can only be called Online Journalism's moral equivalent of B.O)...."The Debate".

IT STINKS!!!!!!

Posted by: The Lonemule | January 28, 2006 11:20 AM

strokin their muzzles...


education is an important thing...too bad your president didn't get one except in back brushin...


you want the truth, be it....

pushing to invent it has already been done...


expressing honestly the dawgs of illusion are easily seen.


present what you see, not what others are framing.......


release their hold on your perceptive qualities....


argue not with fools as they infect you and you must clean yourselves afterwards to remove the disease.


shrill-voices-hating......be the cleansing you seek, look inward.

Posted by: I hear many voices trying to appear authoritariative that are actually friends of the dawgs of war.. | January 28, 2006 01:00 PM

he's known as the number one terrorist in europe....


but let's get real ly


he's the howdy doo doo to the captain dick show....


and who knows whos got his hand up dicks puppet-entrance....

bombing pakistan, when an assassination would have been more effective and less noteworthy? oh yes....got to polarize if we want to make the islamic world look dangerous....not that they're not but...


what kinda weapons does the united states really have?


were the indians really the threat in the united states "indian wars"

I mean they had gatling guns and everything right?

and they poisoned the soldiers water holes and gave them peace blankets infected with small pox right?


you want peace I would think that actions speak louder than words except for the emotionally and mentally damaged/challenged...

they want you to listen to their words and not look at what is going on....


keep watchin the hand,


don't think.

they are gettin a paycheck from that....

traitors

traitors

traitors


warmongers....

filling your walmarts with products and sending your jobs overseas....


caring about you, is the last thing they'll ever do....

Posted by: bush won the election for the hamas.... | January 28, 2006 01:31 PM

It's a rather more intractable situation than Northern Ireland was, sadly.

The time has long since past that any simple solution might arise for this particular problem.

Sharon did not intend to give away much more than he did, and he had solid reasoning for doing so from his perspective. Certainly it was an inch in the right direction, but noone could have expected to take a mile from it in the future.

The situation is often seen, in propaganda terms at least as extremely black and white. Certainly it is known that terrorist tactics in the israeli-palestine question have not been limited to one side, and certainly it is understood that what both sides desire necessarily does preclude the other, without significant sacrifice on the part of either group's ideals, and one group's holdings, but the response from the major powers seldom has anything to do with the realities, be they social or political which exist in that region.

Posted by: Simon | January 28, 2006 02:14 PM

Ultimately, debatable concerns about Hamas in Palestine resonant through the U.S. media as only one additional amplified distraction from the more-real domestic problems at our doorstep. Keystrokes are cheap. Meanwhile, our civilization needs some maintenance.

Posted by: On the plantation | January 28, 2006 05:06 PM

I hear many voices trying to appear authoritariative that are actually friends of the dawgs of war.. wrote:
===========================================
...
===========================================

That's what happens when someone hears many voices in the head. They will see war+dogs=friends!

;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 28, 2006 06:32 PM

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"Every government is at best an approximation of the dreams, goals, and desires of its people."
===========================================

The Taliban and al Qaeta weren't representatives of the dreams, goals and desires of the Afghanis. They killed dreams, goals and desires worse than the Soviets did.

Sometimes too much optimism clouds reality. Hamas isn't anymore the "people's voice" as al Qaeta is the voice of Muslims.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 28, 2006 06:36 PM

SandyK, this person needs a new dogma.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 28, 2006 06:41 PM

Thanks to ErrinF for defending my right to vacation. One day perhaps I will fully exercise that right!
By Emily Messner | January 27, 2006; 11:27 AM ET

You're very welcome, Emily. I appreciate your blog and it was my pleasure to come your defense. To think, I didn't even need to be enticed with revealing photos to do so... ; )
Who ever this Joe character is, I wonder if he goes to strip clubs and demands an opinion piece with his lap dance. There's no shortage of revealing photos on the internet, so he can easily go elsewhere for his titillation and boobery. Try journalistsgonewild.com or redhotbloggerbabes.com, Joe. 'The Debate' is not the place for you.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 28, 2006 07:07 PM

To my dear Lonemule: We get it. Your comments on several Debate threads have made it perfectly clear that you don't like this blog. That's fine; I'm totally cool with that. But for someone who thinks The Debate is a waste of time, you sure seem to waste a lot of time here.
By Emily Messner | January 27, 2006; 11:27 AM ET

IT STINKS!!!!!!
Posted by: The Lonemule | Jan 28, 2006 11:20:26 AM

How ever will Emily survive The Lonemule's relentless strategy of popping up every other blog to say 'It stinks!', and nothing else? That Lonemule is one tough customer, what with the way he spends two seconds per blog to type out two words of criticism. It's a wonder Emily even acknowledges him. I only acknowledge him because of my theory that he is Jay Sherman aka 'The Critic':
"It stinks! It stinks! It stinks!"
"Yes, Mr. Sherman, everything stinks..."

Posted by: ErrinF | January 28, 2006 07:37 PM

nice to see you use your tongue the way you know how...


boyz....mowin that grass...candy a**

Posted by: thanks for th e licking.... | January 28, 2006 07:51 PM

big one...


dream on...shanty boyz.

Posted by: little dawgs banding together to look like one | January 28, 2006 08:20 PM

guess sandyk was prescient about nefarious editing

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php

Posted by: | January 28, 2006 11:07 PM

Don't be so sure that Hamas's win automaically benefits Netanyahu. Olmhert is hardly a dove and the majority of Israeli's are fed up the greater Israel ideology. They simply want security and Olmhert is a trusted and experienced old hand. When Sharon initially had a stroke I initially overestimated Netanyahu's appeal. However, Olmhert is credible on security and there is much resentment about Netanyahu's stewardship of the Israeli finance ministry.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | January 29, 2006 02:54 AM

Well SandyK I'll admit that the Hamas supporters do seem undisciplined in their victory celebrations and I agree they are sociopaths, but when it comes to the attacks they have launched over the years, they have exhibited chilling levels of discipline and efficiency. Recruiting and training the numbers of suicide bombers that they do and planning and conducting the number of strikes that they do takes ruthlessness, calculation, and yes - discipline.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending these bastards, but right now I'm hoping and choosing to believe that since they have: 1) chosen to openly take political control, thereby making themselves accountable to their people as well as other nations, and 2) that those that run the organization are smart and have a survival instinct, they will refrain from doing anything that will either cause Isreal to move in and crush them more thoroughly than they've ever done before, or to lose the foreign aid funds that the Palestinians depend on so much.

If I'm wrong, Hamas won't be around much longer because they will lose the support of the Palestinians as quickly as they gained it or they they will simply be crushed by Isreal.

I'm not saying Hamas will stop their attacks and that conditions for peace may develop because I think Hamas has suddenly become a bunch of nice guys. I'm saying it because I think they're survivors and the only course they have that will allow them to maintain power and to stay in existence is to stop sponsoring terrorist acts.

Posted by: DK | January 29, 2006 02:56 AM

They have brought the situation on themselves, and I feel no sympathy for them, or the sayanim who helped them get where they are today.

So I say...attack Iran....please. Putin KNOWS what needs to be done. When the dust settles, the fallacy of war will become clear to all sides...especially the side whose country just got reduced to a glass covered parking lot.


Hamas Suggests Using Militants in Army
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060129/D8FE0PF01.html
Israeli officials condemned the plan, demanding that Hamas renounce violence.

Is Israel going to renounce violence?

Posted by: Israel created the monster Hamas. | January 29, 2006 08:40 AM

You are completely misunderstanding what I wrote.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 29, 2006 02:09 PM

Jazzman,
Not the first time; nor are yow alone. :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | January 29, 2006 04:03 PM

Cayembe --
LOL . . . I thought I was having delusions. Thanks.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 29, 2006 04:24 PM

I was referring to the dogs of war guy. Your post slipped in before mine. Woof Woof.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 29, 2006 04:28 PM

ok so wuts going on
fill me in

Posted by: new_comer | January 29, 2006 04:49 PM

SS,DD, New_comer. It's a wild and wacky world and the truth is out there. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to discover what's going on and who's in on it.
Amazing how far things can go. It's a dicey jungle, and everyone needs to be alert for falling snakes.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 29, 2006 06:43 PM

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"It's a dicey jungle, and everyone needs to be alert for falling snakes."
===========================================

And be alert for those partisan "True Believers" who had drunk cyanide laced Kool-Aid in the jungle.

Some partisans here have drank out of the same punch bowl.

Maybe why the Mission Impossible countdown, too? =:o

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 29, 2006 07:28 PM

Interesting article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701231.html?nav=hcmodule

Robert Kagan wrote:
===========================================
"But the inadequacy of the military strike option does not mean we can simply turn to diplomacy. Diplomacy by itself has no better chance of success. The present Iranian regime appears committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon. It has been undeterred by the prospect of international isolation or economic sanctions and apparently deems these hardships an acceptable cost. If so, even bigger carrots will not persuade it to forgo a program it considers vital to its interests. Fear of U.S. military action is probably the only reason Iran even pretended to negotiate with the Europeans (and a big reason why the Europeans have negotiated with Iran), but it has not been enough to stop their program."
===========================================

Which is exactly my thoughts too. Iran is trying with every trick in the book to obtain nukes. If they can get their hands on them, they'll surely share them with every Muslim terrorist group (as they all want to commit genocide of Jews).

Hamas is even looking to build a new ARMY.

Does anyone see the fast time table? Iran fast tracking nuclear development, while Hamas, and the roach terrorists in Iraq getting AIT small group tactic training as well?

They're getting ready for World War IV.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 29, 2006 07:43 PM

There is a high probability that Hamas in government will not squander the international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, by continuing its implacable belligerence against Israel. Nor will it sacrifice on the altar of its radical ideology the financial support it receives from the US and the EU, which is vital for its continued viability as a government, and more importantly, for the economic survival of its people. To do otherwise, is to provoke a revolt of the Palestinians, including its own supporters, against it. Already the dress rehearsal of such a possibility has been "staged", with the clashes of Fatah and Hamas in the immediate aftermath of the elections.

The electoral victory of Hamas, therefore, may still prove to be, ironically, a victory of democracy in the region. Hence, this is not the denouement of nascent democracy in the Middle East, as some pundits claim, and the farcical unfolding of Bush's spreading of democracy in the region, but its beginning, pregnant with all possibilities.

Thus, there are still many moves to be played on the chessboard of the budding democracy in the Middle East, and the policies of the neo-cons are not yet checkmated, as the all omniscient ideologues of the Left want us to believe.

Posted by: georgekotzabasis | January 30, 2006 02:50 AM

Morning bump. Here's what Palestine is offering this morning -- another victim...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_denmark;_ylt=

===========================================
"GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Masked gunmen on Monday briefly took over a European Union office to protest a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, the latest in a wave of violent denunciations of the caricatures across the Islamic world."
===========================================

If they can't act civilized, how will the world ever trust them? There is a thing called "freedom of expression". Cartoonists have been making jabs at anything for hundreds of years, and if thugs "don't get it", they have serious mental issues.

If politicians rioted everytime a cartoonist made a strip that ridiculed God or themselves, government would stop cold!

I don't blame the Dane's skeptism and rightward turn (unusual for Europe). But when Vincent Van Gogh's (yes, the renowned Impressionist painter) own relative was stabbed to death, and a radical Islam's own treatise pinned to his chest with a knife, what does the world expect??

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 30, 2006 08:23 AM

From http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-world.asp?parentid=36894

===========================================
Repeating a move by conservative Danish paper Jyllands-Posten last September, Magazinet published the controversial drawings in the name of 'freedom of expression'.

The same caricatures have been blasted by Muslims in Denmark and abroad.

"Just like Jyllands-Posten, I have become sick of the ongoing hidden erosion of the freedom of expression," Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk wrote.

The murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 revealed "that we are not facing empty threats. We know that the freedom of expression in our part of the world is being threatened by religion that is not afraid of using violence", he added.

The editor said he was not afraid of the prospect of facing the same indignation and even death threats that faced the Danish paper after it published the cartoons.

"We have gone astray if we start to give in to fear in this question," Mr Selbekk said.

"Many people have already done a lot to make sure this problem is not hushed to death.
===========================================

[Interesting use of words, and ironically the same message <-- just typed up Theo's name and the above was listed on AsiaMedia's page].

If Palestinians want to run their country like a juvenile detention facility, they'll have to accept that there's adult guards ready to discipline them.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 30, 2006 08:36 AM

Hamas is considered to be non-corrupt but once it has power and the money of government behind it, it will become corrupt as Fatah did before it. Then the voters will vote out the corrupt Hamas government and things might settle down.

The question is whether Hamas will ever let that next vote happen. I doubt it.

Power leads to corruption and absolute power, which Hamas was given by the voters, will certainly lead to corruption absolutely.

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 10:07 AM

Another sad fact for you losing liberals Hillary's duplicity and involvement with terrorists groups (our enemies) such as Hamas. Why is it you don't see articles like this in the Al Jazeera Washington Post or DNC Times? HMM!!!!!

Steve Emerson: Hillary Clinton and Hamas


2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time last Thursday denouncing Hamas after the terror group's big win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

But as noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson pointed out when Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, relations between the top Democrat and supporters of the notorious anti-Israeli organization haven't always been so chilly.

In fact, in a November 2000 report on OpinionJournal.com headlined "Hillary and Hamas," Emerson noted that Mrs. Clinton "has met repeatedly" over the years with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations."

Hillary launched her outreach program to U.S. Muslim leaders beginning in 1996. But as terror expert Emerson observed: "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations."

Among the most troubling terror-friendly groups cultivated by the former first lady was the American Muslim Council, an organization that had "clearly established a record in support of radical Islam," he said.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, the AMC vigorously defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman - whose followers carried out the attack - as a "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system."

The blind sheik is now serving a life sentence in connection with that attack and other plots to blow up New York City landmarks.

Another group that benefited from Mrs. Clinton's Muslim outreach program was the Islamic Relief Association, which Emerson noted, "clearly has a militant agenda."

Less than three weeks before a top official with the group met with Mrs. Clinton, the association held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant.

At the time, noted Emerson, "Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S."
Another organization embraced by Mrs. Clinton was the Muslim Women's League and its parent group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which Hillary lauded in a May 1996 speech for fighting against "hatred."

Three months before, however, MPAC had defended a bus bombing in Jerusalem and called the Israeli response a "terrorist act."

Three years earlier, apparently before the group launched its supposed anti-hate campaign, MPAC issued a statement decrying Israel for its "unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights."

Concluded Emerson: "A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 10:33 AM

Here's another spokesman & friend of the democratic party & don't forget great friend of Cindy Sheehan the poster girl of your pitiful liberal party. Keep up the good work democrats see where this get's you in 06 & 08!!


Chavez: 'Down With the U.S. Empire'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged activists around the world on Sunday to protest against U.S. dominance and the war in Iraq, saying: "Down with the U.S. empire!"

Chavez made the sharp remarks while speaking to activists invited to his weekly broadcast on the final day of the World Social Forum.

"Enough already with the imperialist aggression!" Chavez said, referring to U.S. military involvement in places from Iraq to Panama. "Down with the U.S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!"

"In this century, we have to bury the empire, and may there never again be empires in the world," he said to rousing applause from an audience of supporters and international activists.

He spoke with his arms wrapped around the shoulders of visiting American peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, and Elma Beatriz Rosado, the widow of slain Puerto Rican nationalist Filiberto Ojeda Rios.
Chavez said Sheehan told him during a meeting Saturday night that "soon, in Holy Week, she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch." Sheehan gained international notoriety last year when she set up a protest camp near Bush's Texas ranch.

"She invited me to put up a tent. Maybe I'll put up my tent also," Chavez said to applause.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 10:41 AM

A beautiful characterization of what the do nothing no idea, cut & Run terrorist appeasing liberal democratic party stands for. Come up with some no ideas!!!!

Since the 2004 election, the Dems have had nothing constructive to say on any topic. On taxes, they want to raise them. On Social Security, they want no change. On federal spending, they're as bad as -- dare we say it? -- Republicans. On Iraq, they want to cut and run. Worse still, they want to take away the legal and innovative tools the president and the Big Dog have devised to win the war. Guantanamo Bay? Close it. NSA warrantless eavesdropping on al-Qaeda? Stop it. Secret jails in Europe and Asia to hold terrorist suspects? Close them. Tough interrogation of terrorists that stops short of torture? Don't need to do it. Renew the PATRIOT Act? Only if it's watered down to the point that intelligence can't be gathered or shared. The Dems want to make it impossible to "connect the dots."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 10:51 AM

Repeating a move by conservative Danish paper Jyllands-Posten last September, Magazinet published the controversial drawings in the name of 'freedom of expression'.

The same caricatures have been blasted by Muslims in Denmark and abroad.

"Just like Jyllands-Posten, I have become sick of the ongoing hidden erosion of the freedom of expression," Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk wrote.
===========================================

SandyK - One thing I've noticed over the years is that you never tell a Dane what NOT to do. They'll do it just to spite you. Its a Viking thing, I guess!

Posted by: D. | January 30, 2006 11:28 AM

Interesting that John feels that Dems thinking that law breaking, torture, and inhumane treatment are considered bad qualities. It's also interesting to note that there are repubs against things like torture, or renewing the Patriot act as is. But lets not get a silly thing like facts get in the way, shall we?

And just out of curiosity, John, what dots were connected before all of the recent outcry for change? Certainly you don't mean connecting Iraq to Osama, do you? Or the WMDs? How about connecting the dots to out Valerie Plame? Thats some good work there. If these are what you mean, apparently you never paid attention to PeeWee Herman's Playhouse.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 11:42 AM

Hey Freeloser:

Can your cut & Run do nothing terrorist appeasing party come up with some new ideas, anything????? The last idea a democrat came up with was when Bill Clinton made a decision to pull his zipper up or down or when Ted Kennedy decided to let a girl drown because he was too drunk to save her or when KKK Byrd wa burning crosses! Great ideas from great people in your useless do nothing party!!

We often talk about the Democrats' conspicuous lack of a policy agenda as proof they are a party in decline. But I think there's even better evidence of the phenomenon: They habitually misrepresent what they stand for and what Republicans stand for, and constantly mischaracterize President Bush's actions.

If they had confidence in the salability of their ideas, would they need to play word games, resort to euphemisms, revise history, distort facts and repeat patently false charges?

I long for the days when the worst you could expect from a liberal was the articulate but good-faith presentation of wrongheaded ideas. Today, the political exponents of liberalism reside predominantly in the Democratic Party, which - on the national level - is on the verge of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

On issue after issue, they dissemble - grossly and shamelessly. They aren't honest about their positions on abortion, the Iraq War, their criteria in confirming judges and "values" issues, to name a few. They must believe they can't afford to be.

Worse, they paint President Bush as a liar and miscreant at every opportunity. The most egregious example is their unconscionable charge that the president lied about Iraqi WMD. I honestly don't know how President Bush has been able to withstand the libels with such dignity and class, except for, in his words, "family, faith and friends."

Consider Hurricane Katrina.

They couldn't be satisfied merely to criticize President Bush for failing to coordinate a multi-layered government response in New Orleans, which, in my view, would have been unfair enough, given the obstacles he faced with state and local leaders.

No, they had to go further and accuse him of racism because of the hurricane's allegedly disproportionate impact on blacks, a presumption that was later discredited.

How about the issue of torture? When isolated incidents of abuse of enemy combatant terrorists were reported, they insisted on imputing the charges to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush.

It didn't matter a whit to them that the administration has not authorized illegal techniques in dealing with captured terrorists. What mattered was that this was an opportunity to taint them as sadistic ogres.

More recently, they've latched on to the administration's eavesdropping of al-Qaida without a warrant, which they insist on misportraying as the president's "domestic spying program." They intend to leave the impression that the "power-mad" president has a perverse interest in monitoring private communications between innocent citizens.

Can someone please tell me what motive President Bush would have - other than laudably trying to prevent further terrorist attacks - to listen in on private citizen's phone calls? Can they produce just one innocent victim of the NSA surveillance program?

Better yet, can anyone explain why the administration should need to demonstrate probable cause to listen in to a suspected terrorist's communications when time is of the essence? Do we really want to hamstring our intelligence agencies when going after the enemy in war - as opposed to pursuing suspected criminals for law enforcement purposes?

More importantly, does anyone really believe Democratic leaders oppose the blanket practice of monitoring al-Qaida, and, if so, why? Or are they just grandstanding, as usual, to score political points?

How about their deliberate attempts to smear Judge Samuel Alito as unethical for not initially recusing himself in a case involving Vanguard, a company in which he owned an amount of stock whose value couldn't conceivably have been effected by the outcome of the case?

Even after Alito's eminently credible explanation for sitting on the case, Sen. Ted Kennedy tirelessly repeated the charge, as if Alito had confessed to flagrant misconduct.

Also consider their hand wringing over President Bush's evil scheme to "pack the court" with judges who will conspire with him to emasculate Congress. The charge is almost too absurd to repeat in respectable circles.

They know full well the president's fulfillment of his duty to appoint justices to the Supreme Court does not fall within the definition of "court packing," which was a term used to describe FDR's plan to wholly restructure the court to obtain a rubber-stamp majority.

Then there's their deliberately misleading description of the president's court appointees as ideologues, when those appointees were chosen precisely because of their commitment to judicial restraint, a judicial philosophy that eschews "ideological" jurisprudence.

On the bright side, as a conservative, it is fairly comforting to realize that Democratic leaders do not have sufficient confidence in the popularity of their ideas to sustain a consistent position on Iraq or to present the truth to the people on a host of other issues.

Until they reacquire that confidence, we can expect more negativity, hyperbole and scandal mongering, which is hardly a formula to win elections.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 12:00 PM

Can you imagine any american or party hoping that weapons of mass destruction which we know Saddam had aren't found! You liberals can never be in control of national security because you're a bunch of cut & run sissies. Do you for once think mainstrean red state americans would ever vote to put any democrat in charge of the war on terror and to be the commander and chief of our troops in harms way and hope for the defeat of our military! Cold day in hell freeloser!!!!


Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006 1:33 p.m. EST
Iraqi General: Syria Gave Al-Qaida Saddam's WMDs

A former senior military advisor to Saddam Hussein is warning that the chemical weapons used by top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi in a foiled 2004 plot to attack Amman, Jordan were the same weapons Saddam Hussein transported to Syria before the U.S. invasion.

Gen. Georges Sada offered the stunning revelation Saturday while explaining why he didn't decide to go public about Saddam's hidden WMD stockpile until recently.

"As a general, you see, we should keep our secrets," Gen. Sada told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley. But when news broke of the foiled WMD attack on Amman, he changed his mind.

"I understood that the terrorists were going to make an explosion in Amman in Jordan . . . . and they were targeting the prime minister of Jordan, the intelligence [headquarters] of Jordan, and maybe the American embassy in Jordan - and they were going to use the same chemical weapons which we had in Iraq," he told WABC.

Last week, Gen. Sada generated headlines when he told the New York Sun that Saddam had shipped his biological and chemical weapons stockpiles to Syria in the weeks before the U.S. attacked in March 2003.
But until yesterday, the former top Iraqi official had said nothing about al-Qaida gaining access to those same weapons.

"It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," said Jordan's King Abdullah at the time, in an interview about the Zarqawi plot with the San Francisco Chronicle.

Had it succeeded, the WMD strike would have been the most deadly terrorist attack in world history, with Jordanian officials estimating that Zarqawi's al Qaida team could have killed up to 20,000 people.

While King Abdullah said that trucks containing chemical weapons had come from Syria, he did not identify Iraq as the ultimate source of Zarqawi's WMDs.


Gen. Sada, however, said he had no doubt that Zarqawi intended to use the same chemical weapons Saddam had sent to Syria.
Telling Crowley that he was "shocked" when news of the Zarqawi plot broke, Saddam's former top advisor recalled thinking: "My God, I know many things. How can I keep them [secret any longer]."

Gen. Sada also detailed on Saturday the Iraqi dictator's plan to launch his own WMD attack during the first Gulf War, explaining, "He wanted to attack Israel with chemical weapons."

The top Iraqi military man recalled a meeting of senior defense ministers where Saddam ordered: "I want you to do two things that are very important - to attack Israel and to attack Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons."

Gen. Sada said the planned WMD strike was to be carried out by 98 aircraft, including Soviet-built Sukhoi 24s, MiGs and French-built Mirage jets.

"One wave would fly through Syria and the other wave through Jordan and then penetrate to Israel," he said.

Gen. Sada recalled that he was the only one to raise objections, warning Saddam that such an attack would surely provoke a nuclear response from Tel Aviv.

"I told all this directly [to Saddam] and everybody was listening. If a needle was dropped on the carpet you would hear it," he told Crowley.

After presenting a nearly two-hour-long argument against the WMD attack, Gen. Sada said Saddam was finally persuaded to pull the plug on the deadly operation.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 12:10 PM

Hey Freeloser do you notice the only thing you defeatacrats have is constant made up scandals because you have no ideas and you have a liberal media that fails to give 2 sides to a story. The NSA story won't go anywhere because of what your moron Al Gore did which is far worse because it was before 911. Did you ever read about this in the Al Jazeera Post or DNC Times? I wonder why????? You moron liberals will never win in the arena of new ideas because you have none!!!!


Al Gore Led Effort to Tap Every Phone in America
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006

Big Brother Al

There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported eavesdropping on Americans without court approval - he also chaired a project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the "Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all phone calls without a court order.

In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a report on the Clipper project.

"Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group.

"The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore report.

"The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary means."

The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by several other documents. One such document released by the Justice Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device."

According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S. government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted that the administration was determined to prevent the American public from having private phone conversations.

"AT&T has developed a Data Encryption Standard (DES) product for use on telephones to provide security for sensitive conversations," wrote Colgate.

"The FBI, NSA and NSC want to purchase the first production run of these devices to prevent their proliferation. They are difficult to decipher and are a deterrent to wiretaps."

Buried in the Colgate memo is the first reference to government-developed monitoring devices that would be required for all Americans.

According to the March 1993 Colgate memo to Hubbell, "FBI, NSA and NSC want to push legislation which would require all government agencies and eventually everyone in the U.S. to use a new public-key based cryptography method."

Gore Lied

Al Gore quickly embraced the Clipper chip and the concept of monitoring America at all costs. In 1994, Gore wrote a glowing letter supporting the Clipper chip and the government-approved wiretap design.

"As we have done with the Clipper Chip, future key escrow schemes must contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity of the system. We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption products that they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic surveillance," wrote Gore in his July 20, 1994 letter to Representative Maria Cantwell.

However, Gore lied. In 1994, federal officials were keenly aware that the Clipper chip design did not have safeguards against unauthorized surveillance. In fact, NASA turned down the Clipper project because the space agency knew of the flawed design.

In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NASA Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities, wrote: "There is no way to prevent the NSA from routinely monitoring all [Clipper] encrypted traffic. Moreover, compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise the entire [Clipper] system."

Ms. Cooper referred to Soviet spy John Walker, who is serving life in prison for disclosing U.S. Navy secret codes. In 1993 Ms. Cooper did not know of Clinton Chinagate scandals, the Lippo Group, John Huang or Webster Hubbell, but her prophetic prediction was not so remarkable in retrospect.

Yet, Al Gore pressed ahead, continuing to support a flawed design despite warnings that the design could "compromise" every computer in the U.S.

A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of CIA Directer John Deutch, FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states, "Last summer, the Vice President agreed to explore public acceptance of a key escrow policy but did not rule out other approaches, although none seem viable at this point."

According to the 1996 report to V.P. Gore by then CIA Director Deutch, Reno proposed an all-out federal takeover of the computer security industry. The Justice Department proposed "legislation that would ... ban the import and domestic manufacture, sale or distribution of encryption that does not have key recovery. Janet Reno and Louis Freeh are deeply concerned about the spread of encryption. Pervasive use of encryption destroys the effectiveness of wiretapping, which supplies much of the evidence used by FBI and Justice. They support tight controls, for domestic use."

Share With China, Syria and Pakistan

Declassified documents from the CIA and the U.S. State Department also show that the Clinton-Gore administration considered sharing Clipper code "keys" with foreign powers including China, Syria and Pakistan.

"Are Clipper devices likely to be permitted for importation and use in the host country?" asked a secret 1993 CIA cable addressed to the U.S. embassies in Beijing, Damascus and Islamabad.

"Would the host country demand joint key holding or exclusive rights to Clipper keys for law enforcement or intelligence purposes?"

The secret 1993 CIA cable is one of 69 documents released by the U.S. State Department on the secret Clipper chip project. The documents were forced from the State Department through the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition, the State Department refused to release 12 documents as classified "in the interest of national defense or foreign relations." The documents show that the Clinton-Gore administration considered sharing secret Clipper surveillance keys with China and other hostile powers in order to monitor worldwide communications for "law enforcement" purposes.

Al Gore called the Bush anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government." The former vice president's memory of his own threat to American privacy is flawed and filled with lies. I only hope that Gore elects to come clean with documented history. Until then he can fade into the oblivion of a lying, second-rate ex-presidential candidate.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 12:31 PM

We get it, John. You're an extremist conservative obsessed with the Democratic Party... your type is a dime a dozen, really. My question is: Have you even bothered to address Hamas, the topic of this blog? Not that I want to interrupt this counterproductive diatribe of yours...

Posted by: ErrinF | January 30, 2006 12:35 PM

Here's my post on Hamas read it!!!!

Another sad fact for you losing liberals Hillary's duplicity and involvement with terrorists groups (our enemies) such as Hamas. Why is it you don't see articles like this in the Al Jazeera Washington Post or DNC Times? HMM!!!!!

Steve Emerson: Hillary Clinton and Hamas


2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time last Thursday denouncing Hamas after the terror group's big win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

But as noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson pointed out when Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, relations between the top Democrat and supporters of the notorious anti-Israeli organization haven't always been so chilly.

In fact, in a November 2000 report on OpinionJournal.com headlined "Hillary and Hamas," Emerson noted that Mrs. Clinton "has met repeatedly" over the years with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations."

Hillary launched her outreach program to U.S. Muslim leaders beginning in 1996. But as terror expert Emerson observed: "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations."

Among the most troubling terror-friendly groups cultivated by the former first lady was the American Muslim Council, an organization that had "clearly established a record in support of radical Islam," he said.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, the AMC vigorously defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman - whose followers carried out the attack - as a "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system."

The blind sheik is now serving a life sentence in connection with that attack and other plots to blow up New York City landmarks.

Another group that benefited from Mrs. Clinton's Muslim outreach program was the Islamic Relief Association, which Emerson noted, "clearly has a militant agenda."

Less than three weeks before a top official with the group met with Mrs. Clinton, the association held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant.

At the time, noted Emerson, "Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S."
Another organization embraced by Mrs. Clinton was the Muslim Women's League and its parent group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which Hillary lauded in a May 1996 speech for fighting against "hatred."

Three months before, however, MPAC had defended a bus bombing in Jerusalem and called the Israeli response a "terrorist act."

Three years earlier, apparently before the group launched its supposed anti-hate campaign, MPAC issued a statement decrying Israel for its "unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights."

Concluded Emerson: "A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 12:38 PM

John,
And yet, I don't find anything substantial in your attempts to answer my questions on the 'connect-the-dots'suggestions I posed. If so, you would have addressed some actually stances where the administration has 'connected the dots.' What I do see, is an attempt to justify and protect our president for anything that has gone wrong. You bring up things that have not been addressed as problems and start defending them. Guilty conscience much? Or can you not stick to the topic at hand to feel that you are adequately portraying your savior as a saint? There is also this posted story, with no news source listed, nor link provided. A quick google search finds no site carrying the story, so if you could provide a link, I would appreciate this much so that I feel justified in reading it and assuming it to be accurate and/or valid, and not the ravings of a man who is quick to call names and assert his superiority over others with little to no proof.

You state:
"If they had confidence in the salability of their ideas, would they need to play word games, resort to euphemisms, revise history, distort facts and repeat patently false charges."
Despite your accusation that these are the tools of dems/liberals, I see this tactic run rampant through your posts. You use wordgames in stating my name, 'freeloser.' You bring up abortion and I assume you follow with the ideology of the term 'pro-life.' May I ask your stance on the death penalty? As far as false charges go, you accuse me of being a democrat with no knowledge of party affiliation beyond a handful of posts. You insist that I am cut and run without knowing my stances and insist that I hope that WMDs are never found. In reality you couldn't be more off base. I truly hope that WMDs are found so that so many brave soldiers has a reason to die. Unlike so many of the great party, I truly am pro-life.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 12:51 PM

And thank you, John, for one of two things.

Either:
A: for Revealing that you are David Limbaugh, posting on WP with the name John- The post 'Posted by: John | Jan 30, 2006 12:00:21 PM ' is largely a cut and past from this site: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2006/01/27/184027.html

or

B: You have no original thoughts of your own and merely copy and paste from someone else, hoping that occasionally you can slip them in as your original and intelligent ideas.

So I am just curious, John. Which one is it?

And as an aside, "Oh boo hoo. The media has all of these one sided stories that are never ever found to be true. You never get both sides!" And yet, you seem to post the most interesting 'true/mainstream' stories John.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 12:57 PM

Here's how a former democrat President would deal with a terrorist nation such as Hamas. You have to be kidding me that people like this are the spokesman for an impotent dying party! He wants the U.S. and other countries to fund these animals so they continue to kill innocent people!!And you wonder why you people are losing every office in the country with rhetoric like this?

Carter calls for funding Palestinians
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

A day after Hamas swept to an upset victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, former US President Jimmy Carter on Thursday said that Wednesday's voting had been orderly and fair.

"The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence," the former president said.

Carter, who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organized by the 'National Democratic Institute' in partnership with 'The Carter Center,' urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.

He added that if international law barred donor countries from directly funding a Hamas-led government than the US and the EU should bypass the Palestinian Authority and provide the "much-needed" money to the Palestinians via non-governmental channels such as UN agencies.

"Regardless of the government, I would hope that potential donors find alternative means to be generous to the Palestinian people [even] if the donor decides to bypass the Palestinian government completely," Carter said, stressing that his main concern was to avert the "suffering" of the Palestinian people, which he said could lead to a new cycle of violence.

He noted that the heavily funded Palestinian Government would run out of money at the end of next month.

Hamas, the largest and most powerful of the Palestinian terror organizations, which advocates Israel's destruction, has carried out scores of bombings over the last five years of Palestinian violence, attacks which have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.

Earlier Thursday, Israeli statesman Shimon Peres had opined in a radio interview that international aid to a Hamas-led government would likely be terminated.

The former Democratic president's comments came as US President Bush said that Hamas cannot be a partner for Middle East peacemaking without renouncing violence, reiterating that the United States will not deal with Palestinian leaders who do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Carter, who has long supported the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, voiced the hope that the Islamic terror group would act "responsibly" now that it had won the elections.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 01:01 PM

Hey Freeloser:

Just like the majority of American's we choose not to get our information fron these lying liberal papers such as the Al Jazeera Post & DNC Times. Earnings down 41% wonder why freeloser????


New York Times Earnings Plunge 41 Percent

The New York Times Co. said Tuesday its fourth-quarter earnings fell 41 percent from the same period a year ago, weighed down by charges for staff reductions and an accounting change.

The Times, which also publishes The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, earned $64.8 million or 45 cents per share in the three months ending in December, compared to $110.2 million or 75 cents per share a year ago.

The earnings included a charge of 19 cents per share for staff reductions and an accounting charge of 4 cents per share. The earnings came in above guidance the Times gave in December, which the company attributed to stronger-than-expected growth of 8 percent in advertising at its flagship newspaper for the quarter.

However, advertising revenues fell 3.8 percent at the Globe and other New England products in the quarter, which the company attributed to sluggish demand for auto, home furnishing and other ad categories as well as consolidation of key advertisers.


Overall revenues rose 3 percent to $931 million in the quarter, or 1.1 percent if the acquisition of the online company About.com is excluded from results.

The Times also said it would raise home delivery rates by 4 percent effective Feb. 6, resulting in new revenues of up to $8 million this year. In the fourth quarter of 2005, revenues from circulation fell 2.3 percent.

Shares of the Times rose 41 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $27.72 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 01:12 PM

Plus your media doesn't tie into your party giving talking points to our enemies


Bin Laden Echoes Dem War Critics


Osama bin Laden is nothing if not a quick study - as his audiotaped message, replete with echoes of complaints from Iraq war critics on Capitol Hill, amply shows.

In fact, the terror mastermind invoked one Democratic Party talking point after another in his bid to convince America that George Bush was leading to U.S. down the path to ultimate destruction.

When Ted Kennedy, for instance, complained last year that Saddam Hussein's torture prisons had been reopened "under U.S. management," Osama was clearly listening.

Warming to Kennedy's theme, the al Qaeda chief griped:

"Jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality . . . . As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons."

Bin Laden also borrowed a page from top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who announced after last July's train bombings in London that President Bush's "fight them there, not here" strategy plainly wasn't working.

"The mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries," Osama proclaimed. "The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition."

And it appears that bin Laden agrees with Sen. John Kerry's condemnations of President Bush's premature "Mission Accomplished" declaration, with the terror kingpin decrying the episode as the "fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier."

Bin Laden also paid homage to Delaware Democrat Joe Biden, who regularly turns up on TV to complain that security in Iraq is no better than when the U.S. invaded three years ago, and that troops privately confide in him that their predicament is perilous.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 01:16 PM

Here is Al Zahahri calling Bush a liar and a butcher. This is the rhetoric we hear from our liberal media, Durbin, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy Schumer, Murtha etc! What side are you democrat's on????


Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called U.S. President George W. Bush a "butcher" and a "failure" in a videotape aired on Arab television Monday, his first appearance since an American airstrike that targeted him this month in Pakistan.

Al-Zawahri, shown in the video wearing white robes and a white turban, said the Jan. 13 airstrike killed "innocents" and said the United States had ignored an offer from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden for a truce.

"Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure. You are a curse on your own nation," he said, referring to Bush. "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses."

The airstrike hit a building in the eastern Pakistan village of Damadola, killing four al-Qaida leaders. Thirteen villagers were also killed in the strike, angering many Pakistanis.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 01:33 PM

Israel is refusing to have anything to do with Hamas. How do we set up a Hamas party in America? Maybe then we could get these leeches out of our lives.

Posted by: crusader bunnypants | January 30, 2006 01:34 PM

...Bush is a liar and a Butcher, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3
...the media isn't liberal or conservative, its $Corporate$, the PR hacks get real paid! Rank Ignorance runs rampant here! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Freedom and democracy are on the march, says President Bush. Perhaps. But there is no doubt Islamism is on the march.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8464
In the Iraqi elections, Shia militants wiped up the floor with secularists like ex-Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and Ahmed Chalabi. In Iran, the dark horse who stormed to victory in the 2005 elections is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose commentaries on the Holocaust and wiping Israel "off the map" have even the Ayatollah nervous. In the two provinces of Pakistan that border Afghanistan, pro-Taliban fundamentalists swept the boards in recent elections.

What recent elections tell us is that Arab peoples believe they have been misruled by corrupt leaders, with U.S. support, and the Palestinians have been brutalized, with U.S. support, and their only hope lies in Islamic militants who understand this.

Whether Israel talks to these folks, or slams the door in their faces, is her call. But if we do not wish to be as isolated, we have to talk to them. For, in the Middle East, time does not appear to be on our side.

Posted by: Boom Goes The Dynamite | January 30, 2006 01:42 PM

Hey John,

Here's an idea the democrats have been pushing but I guess you haven't heard about it. Its called: ACCOUNTABILITY BY THIS ADMINISTRATION!

Oh sorry, I forgot that is only important when Democrats are in the White House. Sorry for bringing it up now...

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 01:45 PM

John/Mr. Limbaugh... which one is it?

Alternative forms of media or news are fine and dandy. I'm just curious as to where you are getting them and whether or not they are respetable. I can probably find numerous sites proclaiming bush to be all sorts of things (warmonger, liar, alien, secret transvestite). That does not mean they are true. You can post as many stories as you want. I'm just asking for some proof they aren't a propaganda piece from some group that has no real fact behind it.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 01:50 PM

More doom & gloom from our cut & run liberal friends. Didn't we just have 3 successful elections in Iraq? Oh, but you ignorant liberals wouldn't know that because progress in Iraq is never reported by your lying friends at Al Jazeera Post & DNC Times. I am copying some of these threads to show people because this is mindboggling and amazing how an opposition party not in power representing the U.S. are supporting rhetoric of our enemies and continue to be a mouthpiece for them!! This is great stuff, Thanks!!!

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 01:53 PM

"The Post-ABC News poll offers a revealing portrait of a restless electorate at the start of the campaign year. By 51 percent to 35 percent, Americans said they preferred to go in the direction outlined by congressional Democrats rather than the direction established by the president. On the eve of last year's State of the Union address, 45 percent said they preferred to follow the path of the president, compared with 39 percent who said they favored the Democrats' course."

Perhaps this is what John is reacting to. He and the Republicans he supports have dug their own graves due to incompetence, and they think they can somehow crawl out of their holes by attacking the Democrats. How truly sad for conservatives that they can't run on their own party's ability to govern (which is non-existent), so they have to attack the other party instead. Pathetic. Proof of the brain rot that occurs when these reactionary zombies listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and FOXnews.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 30, 2006 01:55 PM

ErrinF
No no no. Don't you see? ABC. Thats blatantly liberal. Horribly liberal. The polls only matter if they're from some obscure webpaje that John won't link us to, that have, at most a sampling size of 100 people, mostly republican.

What John? You mean this isn't true? Then please, provide some of these 'fair' websites with your stories so we can verify for ourselves, rather than take it on good faith of your abrasive nature.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 01:58 PM

Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called U.S. President George W. Bush a "butcher" and a "failure" in a videotape aired on Arab television Monday, his first appearance since an American airstrike that targeted him this month in Pakistan.
Posted by: John | Jan 30, 2006 1:33:15 PM

See. These Republicans are all bluster and no results when it comes to national security. al-Zawahiri has been strengthened by the incompetence of the Bush administration. Instead of properly conducting the War On Terror, they have bungled once again and emboldened our enemies. Bush and the Republicans couldn't prevent 9/11, can't catch Osama bin Laden, and didn't kill al-Zawahiri. No words from the Democratic Party have helped the terrorists as much as the paper tiger bunglings of our current Republican government.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 30, 2006 02:04 PM

Hey Freeidiot here's one from your DNC Times. Wow, NSA spying was okay when Clinton was President however; now its a criminal act under Bush!! This proves my point you liberals have a lifeless no win mentality, you have no agenda and you have a media that is now exposed!!! Complete defeatest mentality from an imploding loser party!!!!!


NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton


Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.


"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards."

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 02:05 PM

John/Mr. Limbaugh/ plagarist,
Thank you for the article. I will tell you what I have told everyone regarding this. Who and when has no effect on whether or not I think it is illegal and wrong, and whether or not I think the president who is responsible should be held accountable. And the main problem I have with this is not the legality, as the republicans keep trying to assert it is, but that there is no method in place to maintain that Bush is using these searches responsibly and for the good fo the country. Accountability should not be an issue if you are doing no wrong.

You keep assigning me beliefs without basing this on any fact. Please, before you call me a godless heathen, an east coast liberal, or anything else, let me pre-empt you and state that I am mostly moderate, christian, and from the middle of the country. Unfortunately, there are just so many beliefs that I know you can and will try to place on me, that I can't block them all. I will just have to attempt to reply to all of them.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 02:15 PM

Where was Clinton and the do nothing democratic party? 911 happened because of Monica Bill Clinton's zipper and him turning the other way and saying please don't hurt us Mr. terrorists! This is the face of the cowardly liberal party. Furthermore, I thought the same thing was suppose to happen in the last few elections? The democrats were primed to pick up seats and what happened losers??? you lost more seats and you will in 06 with this cut & run sissy don't hurt us terrorists mentality. You people are in the minority for a reason, the majority of American's voted that way! You're so out of touch with mainstream red state American's that this great entertainment what you lunatics are writing, love it!!!!!


Iraqi General: Bin Laden Visited Baghdad



The Iraqi general who served as a top lieutenant to Saddam Hussein said Thursday that he personally witnessed Osama bin Laden inspecting Iraqi air force facilities in Baghdad.

Speaking in halting English, former Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada described the bin Laden visit to ABC Radio's Sean Hannity.

"I can make sure one thing - I know - I have seen by my eyes. It was in '84, '85, Osama bin Laden himself was coming to Iraqi air force headquarters."

Gen. Sada explained: "At that time he was looking for contracts to build air fields in Iraq."


The top Hussein lieutenant said he had no idea if the visit was part of any alliance between bin Laden and the Iraqi dictator.
Bin Laden's 1984 trip to Baghdad has never before been revealed, though a 1998 visit during which the al Qaeda chief allegedly met with Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was reported by the Weekly Standard two years ago.

In an interview that appeared in Thursday's New York Sun, Gen. Sada confirmed that Saddam had spirited his weapons of mass destruction out of the country before the U.S. invaded in March 2003.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," he told the Sun. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

Gen. Sada's allegations are detailed at length in his newly released book, "Saddam's Secrets."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 02:15 PM

Thanks for exposing John's posts as mere cut n' paste tripe, Freedom. That he can't properly name his sources or put forth his own ideas is very telling. If only he could fathom that his GOP rantings here are counterproductive. Part of the reason Americans will be voting the Republicans out of power in 2006 is to put an end to the kind of conservative extremism John engages in. Let him and his kind continue to dig their own graves this election year.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 30, 2006 02:16 PM

Amazing Bush is trying to find and kill terrorists who want to kill even you liberals our families and children yet you defend Al Qaeida! Bush took an oath to protect this country and the majority of American's support him! What was Clinton's excuse wiretapping American's such as you and me prior to 911? Where was the outrage from you liberals? You have the liberal media saying it was okay then but now they are upset because we are imposing on Al Qaieda's rights! Show me proof any citizen of the U.S. has been wiretapped and if you can't shut up!!!!! You're exposed for the phonies you are because it's all in black and white what Clinton did and not one word from you hypocrits?????

NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton


Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.


"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards."

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 02:23 PM

Hey ErinF I can't wait to see the democrats run another losing campaign on nothing! What did Kerry run on? I have a plan and I served in Vietnam! What the hell was his plan? To this day no one knows what it was other than coming out of a catholic church holding a bible!! What are they for? Abortion, higher taxes, defeat against the war on terror, gay marriages, God out the pledge, Tell them to come out and run on this! Why is it every election cycle a liberal democrat has to pose as a moderate centrist? because you moron's can't win on these extreme issues! wake up!!!!

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 02:29 PM

Dear Emily Messner,

You wrote:

"I hope the Palestinians will follow the Irish model;"

This is an invalid and an inaccurate comparison.

I don't see any parallels between the Irish/British problem and the Palestinian/Israeli model. At best you could compare the IRA to the Spanish ETA.

Northern Ireland, I shall remind you, is a part of Britain, and its Irish residents are FULL British citizens who enjoy equal rights as any British in the UK.

British "rule" over northern Ireland has never been disputed internationally. There are no UN security council resolutions against it. There are no violations of the Geneva conventions by Britain in Northern Ireland and the British "presence" in Northern Ireland is not a military occupation.

Now,

3.2 million Palestinians who are ruled by force by the state of Israel (about 6 million people) are not Israeli citizens. They do not enjoy any political rights and their territories are subject to Israeli military rule and control.

Israeli military (and civilian presence) in the territories has been deemed illegal by international law and treaties. It is also a violation of numerous UN resolutions, including security council resolutions.

The State of Israel has also (and still does) violated the Geneva conventions, and has been condemned for decades by all major human Rights organizations.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Eastern Jerusalem (and Golan Heights) in 1967 war and has refused to leave them since. Not only it refused to leave them, it has engaged in a colonization effort in those territories.

You could have compared Hamas to Irgun or Lehi, two Zionist terrorist organizations that fought the British until they drove them out. Irgun, led by future Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, blew up King David Hotel in which 91 people were killed.

On the Irgun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

On the many UN resolutions violated by Israel:
http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm

Posted by: Karim | January 30, 2006 02:30 PM

I hope the posters don't think that I am off subject or wasting time, but I have for some time wondered why people in the US always pronounce the Israeli prime minister's name as "Sharone" (rhyming with "phone") instead of "Sharon" to rhyme with "on".
Americans also pronounce the country as "Isreal" instead of "Israel". So common is this usage that many posters incorrectly spell the country as Isreal without even realizing their mistake.
Is all this some sort of perverted political correctness or does the US government have some say in the way these words are to be pronounced, having some strange ulterior motive?
Some years back we had a similar situation when Saddam Hussein was in power and George Bush Sr. continually pronounced Saddam with no inflection either on the "Sa" nor the "dam", whilst the rest of the world stressed the second syllable as Sa-DAM.
It cannot be mere coincidence that all US public speakers, TV & radio commentators, and politicians align themselves behind this usage.
Is there a US government style manual which must be followed?

Posted by: Rob | January 30, 2006 02:45 PM

Poor John obviously suffers from conservative radio brain rot. I've always said that his kind were highly unstable in that they willingly expose themselves to propoganda on a daily basis. Such a diet of extremist demagoguery leads to the mindset/conduct he is currently displaying.
I find it amusing that Karl Rove recently described the Democrats as being pre-9/11 in their mentality. What Rove and the likes of John fail to recognize is that they have a pre-Katrina mentality. It's that inability to see the political realities of post-Katrina America that will cost them in the elections of 2006. That, and the widespread Republican corruption currently impinging on our national security.
Harken to Kerry and the past as much as you like, John. Your failure to assess the present political situation is fine by me.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 30, 2006 02:45 PM

Hey Moron Errin F:

Culture of corruption & Rebuplicans? I don't think so erin baby your party are the founders of corruption! By the way has Sandy Berger been pilfering any documents from the Archives lately????


William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1873. Indicted in on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 03:00 PM

hey moron Erin and your liberal friends, since your party has no ideas for the 06 election please run on the corruption angle because it will come right back at you and worse just by reading the convictions of your corrupt friends above!!! We will come right back at you with it!!!! By the way why do you think Ted Kennedy let that poor girl drown???

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 03:07 PM

John-

You need to take a valium and calm down. Please be aware that the Debaters on this blog are much more skeptical than they are liberal or conservative, and they insist on facts they can verify independently. This is by no means an insult to you; it's just the way things work here. Please stop screaming before you take a stroke.

Posted by: Average American | January 30, 2006 03:16 PM

John wrote: "Amazing Bush is trying to find and kill terrorists who want to kill even you liberals our families and children yet you defend Al Qaeida!"

Well John the democrats back in 1941 were attacked by surprise and not only defeated those who mounted the attack but the country that supported them in 3 and a half years, while also fighting the Germans who occupied most of Europe. Bush is still "looking" for bin Laden four and a half years later. Do you call that a good defense for anyone's families and children? Bush couldn't fight a war if he listened to his generals, which he does not.

Also, please support your slanderous statement that liberals "defend Al Qaeida".

John also wrote: "Bush took an oath to protect this country and the majority of American's support him!"

No John, he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which Bush is reported as having called a "god-damned piece of paper". He has also broken the FISA Law which is a law to protect the 4th ammendment to the Constitution. But I guess that is not as important as protecting "America". What is America John ... your butt?

"Live Free or Die" does not mean protect my butt at any cost.

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 03:17 PM

Okay Sully so if Bush broke the law than you liberals have to come to the conclusion that the known purjurer Bill (BJ) Clinton broke the law!! We didn't hear any outcry from you liberals when Clinton was breaking the law!! Where were you Sully????? Very intelligent Sully you're a credit to your party!!!


NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton


Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.


"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards."

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 03:25 PM

Hey Sully Here's how a democrat fights the war on terror need I say more???


President Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky may have interfered with his administration's failed attempts to eliminate Mideast terrorist Osama bin Laden, the Boston Globe reported Friday.
The liberal sister paper of the New York Times also raised questions about whether the ex-president's reckless personal behavior ultimately contributed to the deaths of 6,700 Americans in last week's terrorist attacks on the U.S.

"He authorized the attack (on bin Laden) on the same August weekend in 1998 he confessed his affair with Lewinsky to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton," the Globe said.

The paper called the confession of adultery an "added strain" for the president, noting that, "Some wonder whether he wasn't distracted by the legal and political quagmire of the Monica S. Lewinsky case" at the time he launched 75 cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan.

"He met with national security and military advisers to plan the attacks between sessions with lawyers to prepare for his [Lewinsky] grand jury testimony," the Globe said.

"I think it is entirely possible that was a distraction," said Massachusett's Senator John Kerry, referring to Clinton's attempts to juggle his Lewinsky cover-up with military efforts to take out the terrorist who would later prove so deadly to U.S. civilians.

Others disagreed. Former Clinton national security official Nancy Soderberg insisted to the Globe that her ex-boss was able to "compartmentalize" the Lewinsky sex scandal while mapping out a strategy to get bin Laden.

She did not cite the best known example of Clinton's ability to compartmentalize sex and national security: a 1995 Oval Office phone call where he discussed troop deployment to Bosnia with Rep. Sonny Callahan.

The conversation was carried out while Ms. Lewinsky performed a sex act on the president.

As Clinton desperately tried to cover-up his affair with the young intern, the legal fight to preserve his presidency took up more and more of his time, staffers admitted. Meanwhile other issues like the war on terrorism were relegated to the back burner.

"Clearly, not enough was done," said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this."

Even Soderberg, who declined to blame the Lewinsky scandal for the failure to get bin Laden, confessed that Clinton's war on terrorism was never the priority it should have been.

"In hindsight, it wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that," she told the Globe.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 03:30 PM

John reads NewsMax! Both of the above replies from him came from NewsMax columnist John Lindsdale. If you want to reference an article that is fine but save some space and give the link for crying-out-loud.

Here are the links:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/12/113510.shtml
and
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/21/103232.shtml

As far as Clinton possibly spying let me ask you this John: If you are going 100MPH in a 55 MPH zone and are passed by someone going 120MPH, and later a cop stops you, do you defend yourself by telling the cop about the guy going 120MPH and ignore the fact that you broke the law?

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 03:41 PM

Sorry, those two columns were written by Carl Limbacher at NewsMax.com. I'm trying to do to much this afternoon...

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 03:42 PM

If Bush broke the law than one can conclude Clinton broke the law, again & again & again & again & again & again!!!! Come up with some new ideas losers maybe people will take you seriously!!!!!


NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton


Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.


"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards."

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 03:44 PM

It's no use John, the libs run this site. They'll always come back with some b.s. after you've shown evidence to the contrary. No need to worry though. By November, they will have dropped the ball.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 30, 2006 03:59 PM

John,

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00 as follows:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency...

"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

There is a difference between following the law and breaking it John.

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 04:14 PM

Geez, are we back to the FISA thing again?

Posted by: | January 30, 2006 05:11 PM

Hey Sully and the rest of you loser liberals my point has been made and I am finished with this stupid blog but before I leave I want all you defeatacrats to understand after reading all of your threads today its apparent your recipe for winning in 06 is two fold. Running with no ideas and the Democrat's aren't as corrupt as the Republican's.

So again let everyone out there specifically you liberal do nothing democrats share with the american people the democrat recipe for winning in 06.

Altogether losers repeat after me we the democrat party will win the 06 elections by running with no ideas and that the republicans are more corrupt than the democrats. Wow!!! liberals who is the genious of this strategy (Howard Dean)and where has it taken your party? Republican's control the House, Senate, Governors and now the Supreme Court!!

Before I leave let me remember this the democrats will win in 06 with no ideas and because the republicans are more corrupt! Geez this should energize the democrat base!

I can't ever forget this and when I go to sleep tonight remember the democrats will win in 06 with no ideas and because the republicans are more corrupt......the democrats will win in 06 with no ideas and because the republicans are more corrupt....the democrats will win in 06 with no ideas and because the republicans are more corrupt.... the democrats will win in 06 with no ideas and because the republicans are more corrupt.... A party that is an embarrassment to the american people and will forever be in the minority!!!

Culture of corruption & Rebuplicans? I don't think so erin baby your party are the founders of corruption! By the way has Sandy Berger been pilfering any documents from the Archives lately????


William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1873. Indicted in on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 06:01 PM

Poor Jon,
Are you having so much trouble that you have to have posts that say, "well you guys were found corrupt years ago!!!!!" Yes, and there are people of both parties that will be found corrupt for the rest of our natural lives. People generally suck. But that changes nothing about the corruptness that is in our government today. And you make some pretty broad statements, insinuating we didn't speak up when these individual things came to light. Who are you to say we did not? Were you there, holding my hand as I decided whether or not I should protest? No. You weren't. To state you know my intent or past is pure idiocy on your part.

Then again, you said you were done with this 'loser' blog so thankfully, I don't expect an inane answer to this.

Posted by: Freedom | January 30, 2006 06:13 PM

John does have a point our party needs to come together with some core ideas.

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 30, 2006 06:24 PM

Freedom,

This administration is not only corrupt, it is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.

This is a tyrannical administration that has little respect for foreign human life and much less for the rule of international law.

Posted by: Karim | January 30, 2006 07:13 PM

Hey freedom wheres your proof of that? I want to direct my friends to that information.

Posted by: Karim | January 30, 2006 07:22 PM

How easy we as Americans forget the carnage.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a set of coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, in which a total of nineteen Arab hijackers simultaneously took control of four U.S. domestic commercial airliners. The hijackers crashed two planes into the World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York City -- one into each of the two tallest towers, about 18 minutes apart. Within two hours, both towers had collapsed. The hijackers crashed the third aircraft into the U.S. Department of Defense headquarters, the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a rural field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, following passenger resistance. The official count records 2,986 deaths in the attacks, including the nineteen hijackers.

The hijackers were determined to be associated with Al-Qaeda, a well-organized Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon. American investigators concluded that it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who lead the planning of the attacks. He was captured in 2003. Bin Laden initially denied [1] but later admitted to involvement in the attacks, and he is still at large.

The September 11th attacks are among the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century in terms of the profound political, psychological, and economic effects that followed in the United States and many other parts of the world. The attacks, and the subsequent US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made United States homeland security concerns much more prominent than they were in the previous decade.

A sequential look at United Flight 175 crashing into the south tower of the World Trade CenterThe attacks started with the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With jet fuel capacities of nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons (91,000 litres) per aircraft [2], the aircraft were used as flying incendiary bombs. American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north side of the north tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) at 8:46:40 AM local time (12:46:40 UTC). At 9:03:11 AM local time (13:03:11 UTC), United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower, an event covered live by television broadcasters that had their cameras trained on the North Tower. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM local time (13:37:46 UTC). The fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in a field near Shanksville and Stonycreek Township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania at 10:03:11 AM local time (14:03:11 UTC), with parts and debris found up to eight miles away. The crash in Pennsylvania is believed to have resulted from the hijackers either deliberately crashing the aircraft or losing control of it as they fought with the passengers. No one survived in any of the hijacked aircraft.

The fatalities were in the thousands: 265 on the four planes; 2,595, including 343 New York City firefighters, 23 NYPD police officers, and 37 Port Authority police officers in the WTC; and 125 civilians and military personnel at the Pentagon. At least 2,986 people were killed in total. In addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, five other buildings at the WTC site, including WTC building 7, and four subway stations were destroyed or badly damaged. In total, on Manhattan Island, 25 buildings were damaged. Communications equipment such as broadcast radio, television and two way radio antenna towers were damaged beyond repair. In Arlington, a portion of the Pentagon was severely damaged by fire and one section of the building collapsed.

Further information: Communication during the September 11, 2001 attacks

Some passengers and crew members were able to make phone calls from the doomed flights. They reported that multiple hijackers were aboard each plane. A total of 19 were later identified by the FBI, four on United 93 and five each on the other three flights.

For a short period, the precise identity of the 19 hijackers was uncertain. For example, the BBC reported 14 days after the attack that 4 of the 19 were alive based upon the initial identification supplied by the FBI. [3].

The hijackers reportedly took control of the aircraft by using box cutter knives to kill flight attendants and at least one pilot or passenger. The 9/11 Commission could only establish that two of the hijackers had recently purchased Leatherman multi-function hand tools [4], but some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray, was reported to have been used on American 11 and United 175 to keep passengers out of the first-class cabin. Bomb threats were made on three of the aircraft, but not on American 77.

The fourth aircraft
It has been speculated that the hijackers of the fourth hijacked aircraft, United Airlines Flight 93, intended to crash into the U.S. Capitol or the White House in Washington, D.C. Black box recordings reportedly revealed that passengers, led by Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and Mark Bingham, attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers, who then rocked the plane in a failed attempt to subdue the passengers. According to 9-1-1 tapes, one of the passengers had asked for the operator to pray with him before the passengers attempted to retake the aircraft. After praying, he simply said "let's roll." The term "let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Soon afterwards, the aircraft crashed in a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania at 10:03:11 AM local time (14:03:11 UTC). There is a dispute about the exact timing of the crash, founded on the seismic evidence which indicates that the impact actually occurred at 10:06. [5] The 9/11 Panel reports that captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said that Flight 93's target was the U.S. Capitol, which was given the code name "The Faculty of Law".

[edit]
9/11
The attacks are often referred to simply as September 11th, 9/11, or 9-11. The latter two are from the U.S. style for writing short dates, in which the month precedes the day. Both are pronounced "nine-eleven". With the Madrid attacks on March 11, 2004 called "M11" or "311" and the 7 July 2005 London bombings called "7/7" , the convention has been extended. The 1993 World Trade Center Bombings would be called 2-26.

[edit]
Fatalities
Number of fatalities World Trade Center Towers 2,595
Flight 11 92
Flight 175 65
Pentagon Building 125
Flight 77 64
Shanksville Flight 93 45
Total 2,986
At the World Trade Center, faced with a desperate situation of smoke and burning heat from the jet fuel, an estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers [6], landing on the streets and rooftops of adjacent buildings hundreds of feet below (a reaction to the attacks similar to the effects of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and the burning of the General Slocum). In addition, some of the occupants of each tower above its point of impact made their way upward towards the roof in hope of helicopter rescue. No rescue plan existed for such an eventuality. By some accounts, fleeing occupants instead encountered locked access doors upon reaching the roof. As many as 1,366 people were trapped at and above the floors of impact in the North Tower (1 WTC). None of them survived. As many as 600 people were trapped at and above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed.

As the suburbs around New York City learned of the destruction so close to home, many schools closed for the day, evacuated, or were locked-down. Other school districts shielded students from watching television because many of their parents held jobs in the World Trade Center towers. In New Jersey and Connecticut, private schools were evacuated. Scarsdale, New York schools closed for the day. In Greenwich, Connecticut, about 15 miles north of the city, hundreds of students had direct ties to victims of the attacks. Greenwich, one of the wealthiest towns in the world, had more residents killed than any other town in the area.

According to Associated Press, the city identified over 1,600 bodies but was unable to identify the rest of the bodies (about 1,100 people). They report that the city has "about 10,000 unidentified bone and tissue fragments that cannot be matched to the list of the dead" (AP, 23 February 2005).

[edit]
Responsibility

The World Trade Center on fire. The plume of smoke escaping the towers would, upon the towers' ultimate collapse, go on to cover the entire lower portion of Manhattan as well as large sections of Brooklyn.
Clouds of smoke billow out of the Pentagon.
Lower Manhattan as seen from New Jersey, shortly after the attacks
Photo of the impact crater left by the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA (USGS)
Security camera image of the moment that The Pentagon was hitMain article: Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks
The United States government has blamed al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. al-Qaeda claims responsibility for several attacks on U.S. military and civilian targets in Africa and the Middle East. Osama bin Laden, a leader of al-Qaeda initially denied involvement and knowledge of the incidents. Bin Laden earlier declared a holy war against the United States. Shortly after the attacks, the United States government declared al-Qaeda and bin Laden the prime suspects.

In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. [7] In the tape, bin Laden admits to planning the attacks. The factuality of the tape is questioned in the Muslim world: "But the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Frank Gardner, says that at street level in the Arab world, many believe the tape is a fake, a PR gimmick dreamed up by the US administration." [8]. The tape was broadcast on various news networks in December 2001.

Osama bin Laden responded by reading a statement on September 16, 2001, "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel. [9][10][11] This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide. The second public response was read on September 28 by Daily Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper. In it, bin Laden stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle." [12][13]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004 in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaida's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

A United States government task force known as the 9-11 Commission, and calling itself "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States", released its report on July 22, 2004, concluding that the attacks were conceived and implemented by al-Qaeda operatives. The Commission stated that "9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack", but that the specific origin of the funds used to execute the attacks remained unknown. To date, only peripheral figures have been tried or convicted in connection with the attacks.

[edit]
Motive
According to official US Government sources, the September 11th attacks were consistent with the mission statement of Al-Qaeda. The group's involvement in the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania is widely suspected, and Al-Qaeda had declared responsibility for the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.

The motivation for this campaign was set out in a 1998 fatwa [14] issued by bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. The fatwa states that the United States:

Plunders the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.
Dictates policy to the rulers of those countries.
Supports abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.
Has military bases and installations upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries.
Intends thereby to create disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.
Supports Israel, and wishes to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the occupation of Palestine.
The Gulf War and the ensuing sanctions against and bombing of Iraq by the United States, were cited, in 1998, as further proof of these allegations. To the disapproval of moderate Muslims, the fatwa uses Islamic texts to explain violent action against American military and citizenry until the alleged grievances are reversed: stating "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries".

Statements of Al-Qaeda recorded after 9/11 are suggested to add weight to this speculation. In a 2004 video, apparently acknowledging responsibility for the attacks, bin Laden stated that he was motivated to "restore freedom to our nation", to "punish the aggressor in kind", and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy". [15]

Both the United States and Al-Qaeda present the conflict as a battle between Good and Evil.

The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "by his own account ... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The same motivation has been imputed to the two pilots who flew into the WTC: Mohamed Atta was described by one Ralph Bodenstein - who traveled, worked and talked with him - as "most imbued actually about... US protection of these Israeli politics in the region." Marwan al-Shehhi is said to have explained his humorless demeanor with the words: "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" However, bin Laden's 1998 fatwa against the United States (see above) was issued during the highpoint of the Israel-Palestine Oslo agreement era, when all parties believed the conflict was rapidly vanishing.

By contrast, the Bush administration says that Al-Qaeda was motivated by hatred of the freedom and democracy exemplified by the United States, and independent analysts say that one major Al-Qaeda motive is to encourage Islamic solidarity focussed on a common enemy, and thus in the long term help pave the way for an Islamic world order.

Further information: 9/11 conspiracy theories

[edit]
Aftermath

A solitary fire fighter stands amidst the rubble and smoke in New York City. Days after the Sept. 11 attack, fires still burned at the site of the World Trade Center.Main article: Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks
[edit]
International reaction
The attacks had major global political ramifications. They were denounced by mainstream media and governments world-wide, with the headline of Paris, France's Le Monde newspaper summing up the international mood of sympathy [16]: "Today We Are All Americans". Approximately one month after the attacks, the United States led a broad coalition of international forces into Afghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda forces in order to topple the Taliban Government for harboring what it referred to as a terrorist organization. [17] The Pakistani authorities moved decisively to align themselves with the United States in a war against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. It gave the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, and arrested over six hundred supposed al-Qaeda members, whom it handed over to the U.S. [18]


The Honolulu Advertiser was mindful of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 in its headline.Numerous countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe [19] (PDF), introduced "anti-terrorism" legislation and froze the bank accounts [20] of businesses and individuals they suspected of having al-Qaeda ties. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies in a number of countries, including Italy [21], Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines [22] arrested people they labeled terrorist suspects for the stated purpose of breaking up militant cells around the world. This process aroused controversy, as critics such as the Bill of Rights Defense Committee argued that traditional restrictions on federal surveillance (e.g. COINTELPRO's monitoring of public meetings) were "dismantled" by the USA PATRIOT Act [23] (PDF); civil liberty organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union [24] and Liberty [25] argued that certain civil rights protections were also being circumvented. The United States set up a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to hold "illegal enemy combatants". The legitimacy of these detentions has been questioned by, among others, member states of the European Union, the Organization of American States, and Amnesty International. (See Camp X-Ray for further details.)

In September, 2004 Yusuf Islam, a British Muslim previously known as the singer Cat Stevens, was barred from entering the U.S. and was subsequently deported to the UK after his flight was briefly diverted to Maine. [26] Yusuf Islam's expulsion led British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to complain to the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who ordered a review of restrictions placed on people entering the United States.

[edit]
Public response in the United States
The attacks also had immediate and overwhelming effects upon the United States population. Gratitude toward uniformed public-safety workers, and especially toward firefighters, was widely expressed in light of both the drama of the risks taken on the scene and the high death toll among the workers. The number of casualties among the emergency service personnel was unprecedented. The highly visible role played by Rudy Giuliani, then Mayor of New York City, won him high praise nationally. He was named Person of the Year by Time magazine for 2001, and at times has had a higher profile in the U.S. than President George W. Bush.


View of the WTC and the Statue of Liberty.New York City bore the brunt of the attacks. Blood donations saw a surge in the weeks after 9/11. According to a report by the Journal of the American Medical Association released on May 7, 2003: "...the number of blood donations in the weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks was markedly greater than in the corresponding weeks of 2000 (2.5 times greater in the first week after the attacks; 1.3-1.4 times greater in the second to fourth weeks after the attack)." [27]

There were some incidents of harassment and hate crimes against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern looking" people, particularly Sikhs, due to the fact that Sikh males usually wear turbans, stereotypically associated with Muslims in the United States. A total of nine people were murdered within the United States as part of retaliation. Balbir Singh Sodhi, one of the first victims of this backlash, was shot dead on September 15. He, like others, was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim.

The day is often mistaken for the bloodiest day to occur on US soil. This is incorrect: the bloodiest was the 1862 Civil War battle at Antietam, with over 20000 more casualties.

[edit]
Economic aftermath
The attacks had significant short-term economic impact for the United States and world markets. The New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and NASDAQ did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17. New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") facilities and remote data processing sites were not damaged by the attack, but member firms, customers and markets were unable to communicate due to major damage to the telephone exchange facility near the World Trade Center. When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ("DJIA") stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week. As of 2005 Wall and Broad Streets near the New York Stock Exchange remain barricaded and guarded to prevent a physical attack upon the building.

The economy of Lower Manhattan, which by itself is the third-largest business district in the United States (after Midtown Manhattan and the Chicago Loop) was devastated in the immediate aftermath. 30% (28.7 million sq. ft) of Lower Manhattan office space was either damaged or destroyed. Much of what was destroyed was valuable Class-A space. The pre-2001 trend of moving jobs out of Lower Manhattan to Midtown and New Jersey was accelerated. Many questioned whether this loss of jobs and its associated tax base would ever be restored. [28] [29] [30] [31]

The rebuilding has been inhibited by a lack of agreement on priorities. For example, Mayor Bloomberg had made New York's bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics the core of his capital development plan from 2002 until mid-2005, and Governor Pataki largely delegated his role to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation [32] which has been widely criticized for doing little with the enormous funding directed to the rebuilding efforts. [33]

On the sites of the totally destroyed buildings, one, 7 World Trade Center, has a new office tower. Only Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a spinoff of American Express Financial Advisors has been named as a potential tenant for it[34]. There is no consensus regarding the demand for office space looking forward to 2010, so the market for 7 WTC and other new construction in the financial district is soft.

North American air space was closed for several days after the attacks and air travel decreased significantly upon its reopening. The attacks led to nearly a 20% cutback [35] in air travel capacity, and exacerbated financial problems in the struggling U.S. airline industry.

Many towers in the United States metropolitan areas were evacuated hours after the attacks, including Los Angeles, where traffic was at its lowest volume ever for that city, and the major downtown business district was virtually deserted.

[edit]
Rescue, recovery, and compensation
Main articles: Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11, 2001 attacks and Financial assistance following the September 11, 2001 attacks

Rescue and recovery efforts took months to complete. It took several weeks to simply put out the fires burning in the rubble of the WTC, and the clean-up was not completed until May 2002. Temporary wooden "viewing platforms" were set up for tourists to view construction crews clearing out the gaping holes where the towers once stood. These platforms were closed on May 30, 2002. [36][37] [38]

Many relief funds were immediately set up to assist victims of the attacks. The task of providing financial assistance to the survivors and the families of victims. At the deadline for victim's compensation, September 11, 2003, 2,833 applications were received from the families of those killed (from an official death toll of 2,986). [39]

[edit]
Potential health effects
Thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers included asbestos, lead, and mercury, as well as unprecedented levels of dioxin and PAHs from the fires which burned for three months. This has led to debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers, as well as some residents, students, and office workers of Lower Manhattan and nearby Chinatown. [40]

There is scientific speculation that exposure to various toxic products and the pollutants in the air surrounding the Towers after the WTC collapse may have negative effects on fetal development. Due to this potential harm, a notable children's environmental health center is currently analyzing the children whose mothers were pregnant during the WTC collapse, and were living or working near the World Trade Center towers. The staff of this study assess the children using psychological testing every year and interview the mothers every six months. The purpose of the study is to determine whether there is significant difference in development and health progression of children whose mothers were exposed versus those who were not exposed after the WTC collapse.

[edit]
Collapse of the World Trade Center
Main article: Collapse of the World Trade Center

September 13, 2001: A New York City firefighter looks up at what remains of the South Tower.
Buildings surrounding the World Trade Center were heavily damaged by the debris and massive force of the falling twin towers.There has been much speculation on the "performance" of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and the relevant U.S. government agencies. The design of the WTC included many basic innovations distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since. Although the kinetic energy of the jetliner impacts and the resulting fires were unprecedented in the history of building disasters, some engineers strongly believe skyscrapers of more traditional design (such as New York City's Empire State Building and Malaysia's Petronas Towers) would have fared much better under the circumstances, perhaps standing indefinitely. If they are correct, supertall buildings that share the WTC's major design elements (for example, Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center) could be considered particularly vulnerable.

7 World Trade Center collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11. For details on its collapse see: 7 World Trade Center.

A federal technical building and fire safety investigation of the collapses of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC has been conducted by the United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The goals of this investigation -- completed on April 6, 2005 -- were to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster. The investigation [41] was to serve as the basis for:

Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used
Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials
Revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices
Improved public safety
The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing. In addition, the report asserts that the Towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report. [42].

[edit]
Survivors
Further information: Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit]
Congressional inquiries
Further information: 9/11 Commission Report

[edit]
Speculation, alternative theories, and claims of further conspiracies
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
Since the attacks, there has been much speculation concerning their planning and execution. A Zogby International Poll published August 30, 2004 reported that half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe that some U.S. leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act[43]." There are stories of phone call warnings, even weeks in advance that went unheeded. Some theories include the President's behavior during the event as evidence. Others say the damage at the Pentagon and WTC does not correspond to the official narrative. Gaps within the public record, the lack of explanation for particular details, such as the collapse of WTC building 7, and firefighter testimonials] reporting a series of explosions inside the twin towers, continue to fuel speculation [44]. Some skeptics worldwide have formed what they call a "9/11 Truth Movement."

There have been several books published detailing alternative narratives of the 9/11 attacks, and there are a large number of websites devoted to explaining and continuing to examine alternative theories of the September 11th attacks. Reasons behind questioning the official story derive from perceived benefits to the US: as justification for U.S. invasion and occupation of Middle East countries to gain control of oil; to increase the popularity of the President; to make money for the oil and defense industries. Others investigating alternative theories of the 9/11 attacks are concerned by what they see as a series of 'incompetent' or uninvestigated events and coincidences during the Bush Administration which they believe are not all without intention - they see the attacks of 9/11 as the original or largest 'lie,' (or misleading event) that promoted a wartime mentality which subsequently allowed otherwise contentious legislation (i.e., USA PATRIOT Act), authorizations of military force (Iraq War and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan), and even confirmations of what they consider to be questionable US elections (U.S. presidential election, 2004), to be more easily accepted. Gore Vidal has been highly critical of the Bush Administration. In his book Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, he compares their behaviour before the attacks to that of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration before the attack on Pearl Harbor, claiming both attacks were more or less provoked by the United States' government and were allowed to happen to justify going to war.

Critics across the political spectrum dismiss much of this speculation about 9/11 as Conspiracy theories that range from the dubious to the fantastic.

[edit]
20th hijacker
Allegedly twenty-seven members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks. In the end, only nineteen allegedly participated. Other would-be hijackers are often referred to as the 20th hijackers.

Ramzi Binalshibh allegedly meant to take part in the attacks, but he was repeatedly denied a visa for entry into the U.S. Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi Arabian citizen, may also have been planning to join the hijackers but U.S. Immigration authorities at Orlando International Airport refused his entry into the U.S. in August 2001. He was later captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the U.S. military prison known as Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Zacarias Moussaoui was reportedly considered as a replacement for Ziad Jarrah, who at one point threatened to withdraw from the scheme because of tensions amongst the plotters. Plans to include Moussaoui were allegedly never completed because the al-Qaeda hierarchy allegedly had doubts about his reliability. However, in April 2005, Moussaoui pled guilty to involvement in the hijacking and al-Qaeda, a plea which made him eligible for the death penalty. He has yet to be sentenced.

Other al-Qaeda members who allegedly may have attempted, but were unable, to take part in the attacks include Saeed al-Ghamdi (not to be confused with the successful hijacker of the same name), Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Tawfiq bin Attash. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the attack's mastermind, wanted to remove at least one member -- Khalid al-Mihdhar -- from the operation, but he was overruled by Osama bin Laden.

[edit]
Other planned attacks
According to Mohammed Afroze, a planned simultaneous attack in London, on the House of Commons and Tower Bridge, was aborted at the last minute, when the would-be hijackers, waiting to board the planes they were to hijack, saw the damage in the USA, panicked, and fled. Similar attacks may also have been planned in New Delhi, Melbourne, and Montreal.

[edit]
The "War on Terrorism"
Main article: Global War on Terrorism
In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that they had "changed the world forever": that the United States was now vulnerable to terrorist attacks in a way that it had not yet experienced. The United States declared a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to justice, and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists, and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the invasion of Afghanistan, by U.S.-led coalitions. The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with terrorists. The U.S. government has asserted that 9/11 is connected to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Indeed, President Bush said "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001..."[45]. Also, the U.S. government has continued to maintain that the war on Iraq is critical to the American "War on Terrorism". "In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front..." said President Bush on December 14, 2005, [46].

Two years after the attacks, the Program on International Policy Attitudes reported on an opinion poll they conducted of the American public from January through September 2003. They asked "How likely it is that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th Terrorist attacks?" The response was 32% very likely, 37% somewhat likely, 12% not very likely and 3% not at all likely[47]. The White House never maintained that such a connection existed, and as of 2005 no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim. (Unsubstantiated claims to the contrary include: (1) allegations by Czech intelligence of a meeting between 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on the same day Atta was seen in Florida; and (2) evidence that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, allegedly a contact of Iraqi intelligence, was present at a meeting in Malaysia where future 9/11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar is believed by the CIA to have attended.)

Within the United States, President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, representing the largest re-structuring of the U.S. government in contemporary history. Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, stating that it would help detect and prosecute terrorism and other alleged future crimes. Civil liberties groups have criticized the PATRIOT Act, saying that it allows law enforcement to invade the privacy of citizens and eliminates Judicial oversight over law-enforcement and domestic intelligence gathering. The Bush Administration also invoked 9/11 as the reason to initiate a secret National Security Agency operation "to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people overseas without a warrant." [48].

[edit]
Memorials
Main article: September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services
Memorials to the victims and heroes of the attacks of September 11 have been planned for the three sites. An outdoor memorial at the Pentagon, for the public, has been designed by Keith Kaseman and Julie Beckman of KBAS of New York City. [49] Construction of the memorial is scheduled for completion in Fall 2006. Within the Pentagon itself, the America's Heroes Memorial was added in September 2002, when the building repairs were completed. Public access to this memorial is restricted to group tours, such as veteran's groups.

The proposed design for Flight 93 National Memorial is called Crescent of Embrace, and it has created some controversy due to its large red crescent plan which also points toward Mecca. Recently, due to the amount of public pressure, it has been announced that the memorial will be redesigned as to avoid any confusion with the sign of Islam.

Currently, there is no memorial at the World Trade Center site. There is one planned called Reflecting Absence, which was designed by Michael Arad and selected through a design competition. This memorial design been generally praised, while other proposed elements for the site have drawn controversy. Among these were the The Drawing Center and the International Freedom Center (IFC). The Drawing Center withdrew its proposal for the site, and in consideration of objections raised by some victims' families, New York Governor George Pataki has barred the IFC from building at the site.

In addition to physical monuments, a number of September 11th family members and friends have set up memorial funds, scholarships, and charities in honor of lost loved ones.

Further information: Financial assistance following the September 11, 2001 attacks

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 30, 2006 07:29 PM

Yes, poor John. He copies conservative news articles pages long then says he made a point. When his articles are shown to be innacurate he flees. Sounds like a typical republican ... like that guy who wrote the memo saying the Terry Schaivo controversy would be a great political topic, then hid for weeks until he was finally exposed, after the republicans blamed the memo on the democrats of course. Typical...

The dems have idea for 2006 but there is weak House and Senate leadership and lets not even talk about Dean and his lack of leadership. The Dems have great ideas, they just need someone to lead with those ideas, and I don't see anyone that can do it. That's the sad fact.

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 07:36 PM

Hamas is in a real bind that I think is going to be very good in the end. If international funding gets cut off I doubt the people will "understand" that it was not the fault of Hamas. To get that funding Hamas has to swallow a bitter pill, acceptance of Israel. If that happens you will see Hamas split and probably bloodshed within Hamas.

I'll bet Hamas is as mad about winning as Fatah. They must govern and have no excuses and no one to blame. Nothing like using responsibility and the light of day to expose thugs for what they are.

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 07:53 PM

Dear Emily. You should go back to the history books to see the truth. In 1948 the arabs(before they became palesinians) were offerd by the UN half of the land that was a britsh mandate. there answer was a war against the jews. There history in palestine before that was stealing robery and kiling jew. The west bank was won by israel after a war that was started by king husain that never wanted to establish a palestinian state.the progress that the arabs had im there lifestyle sincethe israeli rule was seconed to none.
Now they want to throw the jews into sea.
NO GOOD DID GOES UNPUNISHED.

Posted by: mussa | January 30, 2006 07:57 PM

Hey Sully it appears John doesn't quote articles from sources such as the New York Times which fabricates stories based on forged documents. So you're not winning anyone over with that accusation.

Furthermore, you quote "The Dems have great ideas, they just need someone to lead with those ideas, and I don't see anyone that can do it. That's the sad fact" I don't speak for John however; can you share what those ideas are? Give us an example?

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 30, 2006 08:00 PM

The last one I recall was Gore's "lockbox." However, I can't remember what it was about. SS?

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 30, 2006 08:47 PM

Thanks for your post johnnyg however; this is amazing I ask Sully or anyone out there for that matter to answer Sully's quote "The Dems have great ideas, they just need someone to lead with those ideas, and I don't see anyone that can do it. That's the sad fact"

I don't speak for John however; can you share what those ideas are? Give us an example? I put this out at 8:00 and Sully hasn't answered the question nor has anyone else. Again I am not defending John however; can someone answer Sully's quote?

"The Dems have great ideas, they just need someone to lead with those ideas, and I don't see anyone that can do it. That's the sad fact" I don't speak for John however; can you share what those ideas are? Give us an example?

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 30, 2006 09:16 PM

How about when Hillary wanted to socialize healthcare?

Posted by: Larry O | January 30, 2006 09:37 PM

Sorry Alex, I was watching back to back CSI's (I have a somewhat mediocre life outside these blogs). So I guess you don't know what the dems ideas are. Well, lets see, off the top of my head (btw, I'm an independent who is not happy with everything the dems are about, but I can't think of one thing I'm happy about with the reps:

Democrat's ideas I have heard/read about:
-Immigration reform that keeps our borders secure.
-Reform health care so more people can afford health care. On this point I think we should jump right into universal basic health care which would not cover everything but would cover the things that help everyone such as vaccinations, and catastrophic costs. There is a lot between the do nothing ideas of the reps and universal care for all. Just no reps talking about them.
-Really securing Social Security
-Balancing the budget ... again.
-Impose fiscal responsibility to reduce Bush's deficit and start paying off Bush's debt.
-Fixing Medicare after Bush throttled it.
-Fixing Medicaid if the reps screw with it on Wednesday as they promise.
-Actually capturing/killing Osama and his buddies.
-Running Iraq properly and telling the truth about Iraq and the billions spent there but not in New Orleans.
-Reduce our presence in Iraq, bring in the UN where possible and force the new Iraqi government to get things done.
-Protecting our soldiers properly. A new report says over 300 servicemen died as a result of not having the proper equipment in Iraq.
-Actually listen to scientists instead of muzzling them and face up to global warming.
-Creating jobs in the USA and keeping them here and making it more difficult, and stop enabling them, to be sent overseas.
-Make it more difficult for American companies to locate outside the US for tax savings.
-Expand educational opportunities so that anyone who can get into college can go to college.
-Honest government ('nuf said).
-Federal standards for all elections. You'd think Bush would have done something after almost losing in 2000, but 2004 showed he did little.
-Enforce civil rights laws and actually protect the Constitution as a president is sworn to do.
-Build up relations with other countries that have been shattered by the outright bad diplomacy of this republican administration.

Well Alex, that's about it. The dems really do have ideas but as I said there is little leadership out there to put these ideas forward not to mention provide the details. And the rep leaders in the House and Senate make sure no dem legislation comes to the floor so none of this is ever seen. If the dems win in 2006 you will not only see these ideas gush forward you will also likely see Bush impeached for violating FISA.

Since I'm thinking about these things here are some I'd like to see done but have heard NO ONE talk about:
-Strengthen economic ties with Iraq and Afganistan by setting up companies to enhance trade and pass laws to require trade.
-Subsidize vaccine production in this country and set up a federal vaccine program to produce and distribute vaccines.
-Actually rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as Bush promised but has not delivered.
-Allow FEMA to be FEMA. Get it out of DHS and follow the Clinton vision of FEMA that worked in the 90's.
-Reevaluate NASA's mission for the next 25 years. Going to Mars is not attainable and Bush knows it. We need to increase funding of avionic research and head back to the moon to study Helium3 and other scientific studies. Also continue the rover programs on Mars. Forget men on mars for now but continue the space station research on long range missions.
-Real lobbying reform. If its not done in the shadow of the Abramoff scandal it probably won't get done.
-Making the telling of an lie during an election in order to affect the outcome of the election a federal crime punishable with up to 10 years in prison. That might give Rove a bit of pause and make the information passed out during elections a bit more believable (yes I'm thinking of you Karl).
-Bring the freedoms we all enjoy to the workers in Saipan, an American protectorate, where the reps support the indentured servitude of Chinese laborers in sweatshops making "Made in USA" clothes.

Posted by: Sully | January 30, 2006 10:53 PM

are all right with you?


so if someone in power raped a friend of yours it would be all right if I did that to you? Is that what you're saying....


pleas e let me know.

I thought it was only children that used the excuse "they did it, why couldn't I"

we're not talking about doing anything that benefits you twit....or did daddy tell you to write all of this drivel...you like daddy doncha?

Posted by: Hi john, so you're saying that two wrong | January 30, 2006 11:05 PM

John and Alex Ham,

Could y'all please repeat everything you posted in this thread one more time? Assuming you were actually trying to make a point or points, I didn't get it/them, and I don't want to waste time scrolling up the page (maybe you could retype it in ALL CAPS, and with lots and lots of exclaimation points!!!!!!!!! Nuance is everything in a good debate).

Maybe a single-sentence original idea from either of you would be better than cutting and pasting someone else's diatribes.

Loosers? I wish we could all see each other. I know I'm shallow, but I judge a person's success or failure (or is it winnerness or looserness?) by how attractive they are. You guys sound really ugly.

Really ugly.

Lighten up, dudes. We're (pretty much) all Americans here. Ain't it great!

Posted by: smafdy | January 30, 2006 11:52 PM

Mussa,

Please stop insulting our intelligence..

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story448.html

Posted by: Karim | January 31, 2006 12:54 AM

Hiya smafdy!!!! It's nice to see the neighborhood cop walking the beat again. (high five) :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | January 31, 2006 12:56 AM

The last one I recall was Gore's "lockbox." However, I can't remember what it was about. SS?
Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | Jan 30, 2006 8:47:21 PM

So that's where johnnyg keeps his jar with the ghost of Osama bin Laden... inside Al Gore's lockbox.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 01:20 AM

So John took his leave after all that? What was that he was blathering about cut n' run before he cut n' ran? Typical conduct for a paper tiger Republican. I particularly like how he could give a damn about corruption within his own political party. No wonder there's so much corruption in the GOP, what with the blind followers that seem to have a problem ever holding Bush or the Republicans accountable for anything. Maybe Bush would govern better and there would be less corruption among Republican politicians if there weren't so many dittohead drones blindly buying into the party line.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 01:34 AM

Democrats & Corruption taken from John's post. Its all in black white with convictions people! Who in the Bush administration has been convicted thus far? Hey Erin F when was the last time you were alone with a man?


William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1873. Indicted in on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

Posted by: Main Man | January 31, 2006 08:03 AM

Hey Sully:

This is brilliant maybe you ought to run for congress as a democrat because I don't hear this from any of the democrats? John sure put you people in your place!

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 31, 2006 08:06 AM

Defining your party platform as "If Bush is for it, I'm against it" isn't going to win the Democrats any elections. Which is a pity since I really do believe we need a strong opposition party that offers sane and solid alternatives. maybe Sully should run, after all. Letting your party get hijacked by the fringe left and running around crying "Quagmire!", "Halliburton!", etc., at every turn isn't going to get you a whole lot of votes among the American people. I got a feeling things are going to get alot worse for the democrats before they get better.

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 10:00 AM

You hit it right on the nose D we are watching a party implode before our eyes!


Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) failed today to address rumors that Nevada Senator Harry Reid will step down next month as Senate Minority Leader. Reid has been stung by revelations that his political action committee (PAC) accepted more than $60,000 in contributions from Indian tribes linked to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Biden avoided discussing either the Reid situation or any upcoming changes in Senate Democratic leadership.

Reid is no stranger to scandal, having been the subject of a 1979 Justice Department probe into allegations that Reid -- then Nevada Gaming Commission chairman -- had received bribes through mob lawyer Oscar Goodman and Tropicana attorney Jay H. Brown. The probe officially cleared Reid, but he subsequently received numerous contributions from gambling industry figures, including Brown.

Some Democrats are worried that Reid's continued presence in the Senate leadership undermines Democratic hopes of scoring significant gains this November.

Earlier this month, Reid described Oscar Goodman -- now Mayor of Las Vegas -- as "a real vote-getter" who would be "a very, very strong candidate" if he entered the race for the Senate seat held by Republican John Ensign. "I'm happy to give him any advice or counsel that he needs or wants," Reid told the Las Vegas Sun. "I've known him for many, many years and will have to wait and see what he decides to do." Before becoming mayor in 1999, Goodman was a defense attorney whose mob clients included Anthony "Tony the Ant" Spilotro.

"Reid is going around the country talking about a 'Republican scandal' -- about Republicans accepting one- and two-thousand dollar contributions from Jack Abramoff, when his own PAC took in $60,000," said one Republican strategist. "If this is what the Democrats call a 'Culture of Corruption,' it ought to be an interesting discussion."

Some Democrats are also upset that Reid capitulated on President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster," Reid told reporters, even as Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and others worked to drum up support for such an effort. Reid later stated he would support a filibuster, but only as a sort of protest vote. "I think it is an opportunity for people to express their opinion as to what a bad choice (Alito) was," Reid said.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, appearing on Fox News Sunday, made no announcements concerning Reid's status, but did comment on the growing controversy.

Moderator Chris Wallace asked Dean, "if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?"

Without mentioning Reid by name, Dean replied, "That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble."

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 10:31 AM

why bother to interact?


regarding democrats faux paux's over the years:


there is only one party....part of Johns disinformation is to polarize you into thinking that only the republicans are evil or to defend the president by saying "they did it too"


this didn't work with my parents when I was little, why should it work now?

democrats and republicans are about as real as wrestling characters....


they generate attention and lead you away from points


there is no "war"


we are attacking

but we have not been attacked by the people that we are attacking


there should be no war powers.


something simple like tom delay having violated his oath of office: never comes up, they chase him around on money laundering....if they were real they'd impeach him and file criminal charges as a seperate issue.


we have helped the hamas to win by creating the sense within them that there is no hope and they might as well go out in style....

ever read about geronimo?


how did the cherorkees end up in effing oklahoma? they come from North Carolina, ever been to North Carolina in the mountains....if you're cherokee how do you think you'd feel about the deserts of oklahoma....


there are no democrats or republicans...


there are affluent that have deals to cut.

some of them are local, some of them are international....the bin Ladins have been to the bush family ranch.....


you need a spook in a towelhat, we gots one.


your jobs are going over seas, your factories are disappearing and anyone in the computer industry can tell you about outsourcing, pensions, benefits are leaving for the citizens that don't live in DC or aren't government workers....

the us peasant/citizens/serfs are not needed anymore, they've got new ones that charge less


why should your leaders be concerned about illegal aliens, they hire them...cheapest workers, easiest to manipulate and they don't have to talk to you.....check out the kitchen staff at the 24 hour in Vienna.


you created this country and it is being sold out from under you to the highest bidder in the international world.


how much land does germany, saudi arabia or japan own in the united states....can you own that much land in their country?


do they swing any votes in congress with their influence....any Royal Banks showing up in your neighbor hood?


regulation is important for the citizens the french learned that a few hundred years ago....this is a young country

your leaders are corrupt, forget about what title they wear

Posted by: So john is sandyK's replacement... | January 31, 2006 10:34 AM

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving party. And these people honestly think they can win in 06 & 08! Hey John we miss you and you're an inspiration to our party. Don't listen to these proven to be losers. Here's a cut and paste in your honor for our friends on the extreme left!

Roll Call magazine is reporting that -- well, Roll Call's reporting one thing, that Howard Dean is in big trouble with the Democrat leadership. He spent all the money. The Democrats are out of money! This notwithstanding the fact that the Republicans have raised twice as much, the RNC has raised twice as much as the DNC. Roll Call magazine says that, "Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean's management of the Democrat National Committee, and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee's cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle."

Now, it was just a few short weeks ago into last year that the whole media template was that the Democrats had already won the House back in '06 and they might even get the Senate; and of course with Hillary as the peremptory, perfunctory Democratic presidential nominee, why, the White House was theirs in '08. Now all of a sudden they're out of money. I mean, it's what Roll Call says, "He has spent nearly all the committee's cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle. Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee's $34 million. Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with the Senate and House campaign committee chairmen Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have made their concerns -- directly or indirectly -- known to Dean, claims the paper. Emanuel was particularly upset last week upon seeing the latest DNC numbers. 'A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what's going on,' said one senior Democratic aide. Another Democratic source familiar with the party fundraising apparatus said there is 'obvious displeasure' among the leaders."


Well, I knew it would come down to money because nothing Dean says is going to upset them, nothing he does is going to upset them. This is a political party that's in the midst of a crackup. I think it's in the midst of committing suicide. The Democratic Party's idea of presidential leadership is losing a filibuster. I mean, all these Democrats getting behind Kennedy and Kerry, "Oh, we don't think it will work but I'm all in favor--" Hillary Clinton, they're all getting behind this. The Washington Post finally did a story Saturday by Jim VandeHei on what's driving all this, and that's the liberal bloggers. It's amazing. You know, the liberal bloggers do not connect with the American people. The Democratic Party does not connect with the American people. The Democratic Party is trying to survive by spin and PR and image. The Democratic Party is trying to survive by pleasing its fund-raising kooks, but in terms of a substantive agenda there just isn't one, and the things that they think are going to illustrate bold leadership like losing a filibuster, look it, their idea of creating jobs is to kill off as many Wal-Marts as they can. Now, that's not really killing jobs. That's just preventing nonunion jobs from being created, but that's the same thing. Their idea of creating jobs is killing Wal-Mart. Their idea of an energy policy is to tax the oil companies more. I mean, you know, they set out each and every day to kill the golden goose and wonder why it doesn't lay any more gold eggs. Of course, their goose is actually government and all it does is scramble eggs and it doesn't provide much of anything to anybody. Oh, and there's one other thing about Harry Reid, and I've got this somewhere in the stack and I don't recall exactly where, but I'll find it. But here's the upshot of it.

This Abramoff scandal, you know, Howard Dean tried so hard to make sure that everybody understood -- because they talk about eggs -- the Abramoff scandal is the latest basket into which they've thrown all their eggs. And so it can't be that Abramoff ever gave any money to Democrats, just can't be. But it turns out that he did direct agents of his and clients of his to funnel money to Democrats and Republicans. Now, the Democrats are saying, "We never directly took any money from Abramoff." Well, doesn't matter. If you're going to go out there and start complaining and whining and moaning about a Republican who took a thousand or $2,000 from Abramoff, then you've got Dingy Harry over there who's accepted 60 grand from Abramoff clients, you've got a problem. Even Howard Dean admitted that this is a problem because he's had to come off of this notion that no Democrat ever took a dime directly from Abramoff because, doesn't matter, Abramoff directed money from his clients or associates to go to certain Democrats. And Dingy Harry, from what I've been told, they're seriously asking him to step down from the leadership position next month, because they don't want any hassles as they try to tag this as an exclusive Republican scandal.

Posted by: Main Man | January 31, 2006 10:36 AM

reactivity is useful if you're fighting....


but even a good fighter knows not to get led....feints, shifts,

let them come to you.

what do you want to talk about?


what is important to you? watch how o'really changes any topic to one that he wants to discuss....

the number of sound bytes that say the same thing is what your "plants" are looking for

this is a public forum....they don't want anyone to find out that not everyone supports the president...

got to make you look like kooks or keep people from looking here at all.


if you speak be effective and allow yourselves to treat children as that...these guys aren't sophisticated


back away from tarbabies....


set them on fire.

Posted by: you shall know them by their werks... | January 31, 2006 10:42 AM

I have to say John is correct. By the way John this cut & paste is for you. I ask you liberals who in your party has said these same things about our country as Zawahiri? Reid, Kennedy, Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, Schumer, Hillary, Durbin.... You expect Americans to vote for a party that mimics our enemies?


Zawahiri video blasts US strike

Zawahiri has previously warned the US of interfering in the Middle East
Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri has appeared on a video tape taunting the US about an air strike in Pakistan which failed to kill him.
On the tape, aired by al-Jazeera TV, he called the US president a "butcher" and asked: "Do you want to know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses."

Pakistani officials said some foreign militants died in the attack near the Afghan border earlier this month.

However most of the dead were villagers and Pakistan condemned the strike.

In the taped message, Zawahiri said the raid had targeted him and four of his companions.

"The whole world has discovered the magnitude of the United States' lies and failure and how barbaric it is in its fight against Islam and Muslims," he said.

He said that neither President George W Bush nor "all the powers on earth" could bring his death "one second closer".

He referred to the offer of a "truce" made by Osama Bin Laden in a 19 January tape also aired on al-Jazeera, saying the al-Qaeda leader had offered the US an "honourable exit" from Iraq.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, he told Americans that Mr Bush had given them a future "painted in the colour of blood", and he also noted British military involvement.

"O British wife: If the Department of Defence contacts you to tell you that your husband will reach you handicapped, with limbs amputated, and torched, then remember Tony Blair," he said.

This is the second appearance for the al-Qaeda deputy leader this month.

On 6 January he appeared in a video tape shown by al-Jazeera in which he called on the US president to admit defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Zawahiri is regarded as Bin Laden's right-hand man.

The two have evaded capture since US-led forces brought down the Taleban regime in Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 2001 attacks on the US.

BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says that although the al-Qaeda leaders are in hiding, they are clearly still able to continue waging an ideological battle with the West.

Posted by: Proud of John | January 31, 2006 10:47 AM

here's something simple...


why did 30,000 jobs disappear at ford last week?


the gas prices going up to $3.00 scared the consumers...


did the ford motor company make any plans to shift production or think about the fact that oil is a non replacable resource?


why not?


why should you have to pay for 30,000 people who were making middle class income with full benefits to fall into the service sector eventually....


why aren't there any contingency plans required of large manufacturers that require them to take care of their employees?


there used to be plans for department stores...

why is all of the oil pumped in Alaska sold to Japan?


Why would we need to drill parklands....why would your president even say that....he knows where the oil goes and where it comes from....

it is called bullshittin'


why is the leader of venezuela hopping around saying don't mess with me......we invaded iraq...


where have we gotten most of our oil from recently?

venezuela...check it out...


come on little dawgs bark beh beh beh...oweee oweee oweee..


piece of cake...


you lead the discussion

Posted by: hello disinformation ist.... | January 31, 2006 10:54 AM

here's something simple...


why did 30,000 jobs disappear at ford last week?


the gas prices going up to $3.00 scared the consumers...


did the ford motor company make any plans to shift production or think about the fact that oil is a non replacable resource?


why not?


why should you have to pay for 30,000 people who were making middle class income with full benefits to fall into the service sector eventually....


why aren't there any contingency plans required of large manufacturers that require them to take care of their employees?


there used to be plans for department stores...

why is all of the oil pumped in Alaska sold to Japan?


Why would we need to drill parklands....why would your president even say that....he knows where the oil goes and where it comes from....

it is called bullshittin'


why is the leader of venezuela hopping around saying don't mess with me......we invaded iraq...


where have we gotten most of our oil from recently?

venezuela...check it out...


come on little dawgs bark beh beh beh...oweee oweee oweee..


piece of cake...


you lead the discussion

Posted by: hello disinformation ist.... | January 31, 2006 10:54 AM

I agree proud of John if I was voting and had to vote for any of the democrats above it would be like voting for Al-Zawahiri.

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 31, 2006 10:55 AM

now hows about becoming more visible...

I'll help you.

Posted by: thanks for being transparent.... | January 31, 2006 11:03 AM

Facts!!!!!


The Trade Gap Narrowed 5.8% In Nov. ("Record Exports Help U.S. Trade Gap Narrow In Nov.," MarketWatch, 1/12/06)

Exports Increased 1.8%, The Best Increase Since April 2005 And A New Record. ("Record Exports Help U.S. Trade Gap Narrow In Nov.," MarketWatch, 1/12/06)
Imports Fell 1.1%, The First Drop Since July 2005. ("Record Exports Help U.S. Trade Gap Narrow In Nov.," MarketWatch, 1/12/06)
Exports To South And Central America Hit A Record High In Nov.; Exports To The EU Were The Highest Since April. ("Record Exports Help U.S. Trade Gap Narrow In Nov.," MarketWatch, 1/12/06)

The Gap Was Improved By Surging Airport Exports And Falling Energy Prices. ("Trade Gap Narrowed In November as Energy Costs Eased," The New York Times, 1/13/06)

The Dow Jones Index Was Up Nearly 245 Points, Or Approximately 2.3%, In The First 8 Days Of Trading This Year. (Yahoo Finance Website, http://finance.yahoo.com, Accessed 1/03/06)

· The Nasdaq Was Up More Than 111 Points, Or 5.1%, And The S&P Was Up Nearly 38 Points, Or 3%, In The First 8 Days Of Trading. (Yahoo Finance Website, http://finance.yahoo.com/, Accessed 1/03/06)

In The Last Four Years, States Have Closed An Aggregate $264 Billion Budget Gap. ("States Of Plenty," The Wall Street Journal, 1/11/06)

California Expects A $5.2 Billion Surplus, New York, A $2 Billion Surplus, And Connecticut, A $524 Million Surplus. ("States Of Plenty," The Wall Street Journal, 1/11/06)
State Tax Receipts Were Up 8.7% In 2004. ("States Of Plenty," The Wall Street Journal, 1/11/06)

Receipts Were Up 6.3% In Indiana For The First Three Quarters Of 2005. ("States Of Plenty," The Wall Street Journal, 1/11/06)

Hourly Wages Rose 3.1% In 2005, The Fastest Pace Since Early 2003. ("Wages Grow At Fastest In 3 Years," USA Today, 1/9/06)

Consumer Debt Fell 0.4% In Oct., The Largest Drop In 15 Years And The 2nd Consecutive Monthly Drop. ("Consumer Credit Falls For 2nd Month," MarketWatch, 1/9/06)

The Last Time Consumer Debt Fell For Two Straight Months Was In 1992. ("Consumer Credit Falls For 2nd Month," MarketWatch, 1/9/06)
Retail Sales In Dec. Were 6.3% Higher Than The Same Month A Year Before. ("U.S. Retail Sales Rise 0.7% On Autos," MarketWatch, 1/13/06)

Chain Store Retail Sales Rose 3.7% Last Week, Compared With The Same Week In 2005. ("Inventories Held By Wholesalers Increased By 0.4% In November," Reuters, 1/11/06)
ISM's Index Of CEO Confidence Increased From 50% In The 3rd Quarter Of 2005 To 56% In The 4th Quarter. ("CEO Showed Confidence In Economy, Poll Shows," The Wall Street Journal, 1/12/06)

Posted by: Main Man | January 31, 2006 11:04 AM

30,000 jobs were last because of the democratic supported unions! Everything democrats are surrounded by loses!

Posted by: Proud of John | January 31, 2006 11:07 AM

that companies in and of themselves wouldn't take care of the workers...


womans rights, child labor laws, labor laws...


owners killed people to prevent unions from coming in...

children less than 10 years old working in factories in america at turn of the century....


women dying in fires in new york...

unions were the stuff of the emergent democracy as well as folk song...

now we are free to work 30 hours a week in a grocery store with no benefits, because they're removed unions..

used to be you could be a milkman and make a living....not anymore...


rights have been legislated away...

and whose side are you on? the people's side or are you on the side of the bullies....


mr bully


hee hee hee

Posted by: unions were created in response to a growth in understanding | January 31, 2006 11:15 AM

Spam from those who see no ills in the Bush administration and in the neo-con driven Republican party are not arguments. There is little question that the Republican party is on the side of power (in government and business) and essentially unconcerned about the needs of average Americans. In areas like tax cuts, job creation, healthcare, wages, and individual rights, Republicans have pretty well staked out their protected territory. Defense of an empirial presidency through constant claims of danger from "outsiders" is further indication of the pro-power bias.
Someone has posted a list (to what end is not clear) of Democratic politicians who over some years were involved in or found guilty in court actions. That is not at all the same thing as a party that has at its core slippery dealings with lobbyists, major business interests, and "outings" such as the Valerie Plame case. Harkening to the grand plan of Karl Rove or a small coterie of like-minded strategizers, the Republican party has adopted a win-at-all-costs approach that holds no respect for the ideals of U. S. Constitutional democracy. Why should it, when most people can be fed the trappings of patriotism and see it as the real thing. Using conservative Christian religion as an ally only takes a little posturing, but there is no great cost in political capital. Tax cuts that overwhelmingly (and obscenely) benefit wealthy Americans at the expense of earners below $50k are also touted as having restored the economy, but without any real evidence of cause and effect. These and a host of other tricks are the sum of great Republican ideas. Oh yes, and that war that found no weapons of mass destruction.
Let's not carry on that Democrats are unconcerned about terrorism; they are, and they want meaningful measures to seek out and quell this threat to peace and prosperity. And because the presently dominant Republican party sees no need to listen to ideas of merit from conservationists, independents, or other political drifts doesn't mean that there aren't any. In a few more years, we will begin to understand that the Japanese recession has ended and that that country has positioned itself again in the economic world to stand proudly on its own. Meanwhile, the prevailing pro-big-business approach taken here will leave the nation strongly divided into have and have-not segments.
This isn't about Bush, because in 2 more years, G. W. Bush will be off the stage. It is about a philosophy of governance that says "accept or stand aside." That is not the U. S. A. created by our founders. And it will never be patriotic to support such an outlook.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 31, 2006 11:16 AM

To MainMan --
Your list sounds just like those read by the Party in the novel, "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

Posted by: Jazzman | January 31, 2006 11:20 AM

An article about you kook leftists bloggers by your own Washington Post. Here's another cut & paste dedicated to you John wherever you are!!

Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; Page A06

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.


VIDEO | Watch excerpts from the fourth day of the Alito confirmation hearings.

NARRATED GALLERY

Alito Revealed
Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. decided to study constitutional law because he was distressed over the liberal activism practiced under Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership.

Database: Analyzing Alito's Votes
A Jan. 1 Washington Post story analyzed Judge Alito's rulings on the appellate court. To read the story and to read more information about the cases that were analyzed, click below:

Story: Alito, In and Out of the Mainstream
Graphic: Which Side Was Alito On?
Full List of Cases
Cases Listed by Issue
About The Analysis


Campaign for the Court
The Washington Post's Fred Barbash follows the step-by-step process of confirming Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- President Bush's pick to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.
• Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle--The Washington Post
• Senate to Vote On Alito Today-The Washington Post
• Roll Call of the Cloture Vote
• Campaign for the Court Archive
Sign Up for RSS Feed


Samuel A. Alito Jr.
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2005. If confirmed, Alito will fill the seat currently held by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Profile: Samuel A. Alito Jr.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
How Appealing
Captain's Quarters
Mr. Alec


Full List of Blogs (163 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. "What the hell are they thinking?" was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington's column blasting the Kaine selection.

"Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them," Kaine said to reporters Thursday. "You can get a lot done if you're not bitterly partisan."

The Virginia Democrat said he will not adjust his speech to placate the party's base. "I'm not anybody's mouthpiece or shill or poster boy for that matter. I'm going to say what I think needs to be said and they seem very comfortable with that."

Liberal activists seemed to have slightly more influence with their campaign to persuade Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. Despite several polls showing that the public opposes the effort, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday strongly advocated the filibuster plan -- and wrote about his choice on the Daily Kos, a Web site popular with liberals. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a leading liberal and critic of the Iraq war, told reporters Kerry's viewpoint is not shared by most in a culturally conservative swing state such as West Virginia. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also opposes the filibuster.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is another frequent target of the Internet attacks. Code Pink, an antiwar women's group with a flashy Web site, plans to protest one of Clinton's weekend fundraisers and is using the Web site to rally people against the New York Democrat. The critics say Clinton has not challenged Bush aggressively enough on Iraq.

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

The blogs-vs.-establishment fight represents the latest version of a familiar Democratic dispute. It boils down to how much national candidates should compromise on what are considered core Democratic values -- such as abortion rights, gun control and opposition to conservative judges -- to win national elections.

Many Democrats say the only way to win nationally is for the party to become stronger on the economy and promote a centrist image on cultural values, as Kaine did in Virginia and as Bill Clinton did in two successful presidential campaigns.

The new twist in this debate is the Web, which in recent election cycles emerged as a powerful political force, one expected to figure even more prominently as more people get high-speed connections and turn to the Internet for news and commentary. Unlike the past, the "pressure is conveyed through a faster, better organized, more insistent medium," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist.

Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center
In the 2004 campaign, liberals used the Web to organize meetings and raise money to power the unexpected rise of former Vermont governor Howard Dean in the Democratic primaries. Dean, a newcomer to national politics who connected with liberals with his antiwar position and declaration to supporters that "you have the power" to change Washington, shattered fundraising records and for months was considered the front-runner in the race for the nomination.

But the Democratic establishment turned on Dean, and his grass-roots operation was not as strong in reality as it appeared on the Internet. Since then, liberal activists have created scores of political blogs and used the Web as an organizing tool and a way to quickly vent frustrations to Democratic leaders in Washington.


VIDEO | Watch excerpts from the fourth day of the Alito confirmation hearings.

NARRATED GALLERY

Alito Revealed
Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. decided to study constitutional law because he was distressed over the liberal activism practiced under Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership.

Database: Analyzing Alito's Votes
A Jan. 1 Washington Post story analyzed Judge Alito's rulings on the appellate court. To read the story and to read more information about the cases that were analyzed, click below:

Story: Alito, In and Out of the Mainstream
Graphic: Which Side Was Alito On?
Full List of Cases
Cases Listed by Issue
About The Analysis


Campaign for the Court
The Washington Post's Fred Barbash follows the step-by-step process of confirming Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- President Bush's pick to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.
• Alito Confirmed
• The Roberts Court
• Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle--The Washington Post
• Campaign for the Court Archive
Sign Up for RSS Feed


Samuel A. Alito Jr.
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2005. If confirmed, Alito will fill the seat currently held by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Profile: Samuel A. Alito Jr.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
How Appealing
Captain's Quarters
Mr. Alec


Full List of Blogs (163 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

The closest historic parallel would be the talk-radio phenomenon of the early 1980s, when conservatives -- like liberals now -- felt powerless and certain they did not have a way to voice their views because the mainstream media and many of their own leaders considered them out of touch. Through talk radio, often aired in rural parts of the country on the AM dial, conservatives pushed the party to the right on social issues and tax cuts.

The question Democrats will debate over the next few years is whether the prevailing views of liberal activists on the war, the role of religion in politics and budget policies will help or hinder efforts to recapture the presidency and Congress.

Even if they disagree with their positions, Democratic candidates recognize from the Dean experience the power of the activists to raise money and infuse a campaign with their energy. On the flip side, the Alito and Kaine episodes serve as a cautionary tales of what can happen to politicians when they spurn the blogs.

"John Kerry is beginning to bring the traditional Democratic leadership in Washington together with the untraditional netroots activists of the country," James Boyce wrote on the Huffington Post. "A man often accused of being the ultimate Washington insider looked outside of the beltway and saw the concern, in fact, the distress among literally millions of online Democrats."

Other Democrats, Boyce wrote, "triangulated, fabricated, postulated and capitulated."

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 11:23 AM

Another honest democrat! You talk about breaking a law? This is for you also John.


WASHINGTON -- Former President Clinton's national security adviser is under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, FOX News has confirmed.

Sandy Berger (search) is under scrutiny by the Justice Department (search) following the disappearance of documents he was reviewing at the National Archives.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (search) agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives (search) and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports.

• Click to read Berger's testimony before the Sept. 11 commission (pdf file).

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement.

There are laws strictly governing the handling of classified information, including prohibiting unauthorized removal or release of such information.

Lanny Breuer, one of Berger's attorneys, said his client had offered to cooperate fully with the investigation but had not yet been interviewed by the FBI or prosecutors.

Berger served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of the president's second term and most recently has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Clinton asked Berger last year to review and select the administration documents that would be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

Late Tuesday, Berger announced that he would no longer aid Kerry's presidential bid, saying he didn't want to diminish the work of the Sept. 11 commission.

"Mr. Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 commission to be used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter is resolved," Breuer said.

Deputy Attorney General James Comey told reporters Tuesday he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.

"As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously," Comey said in response to a reporter's question about the Berger bind, adding that the department has prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.

"It's our lifeblood, those secrets," Comey continued. "It's against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations."

'Inadvertent' Action?

The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees said they believed they witnessed Berger placing documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were missing.

Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but could not locate two or three copies of the millennium terror report.

"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said.

"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."

Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.

Government and congressional officials said no decision has been made on whether Berger should face criminal charges.

Although lawmakers didn't want to make a judgment call on Berger's fate until all the facts are known, they agreed that the situation doesn't look good for Berger, or even for Kerry.

"There's an ethic here -- that is of strict discipline, of not letting the fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when it comes to national security," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Tuesday.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising" and said that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said was right -- that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is serious."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said, "we need more information -- obviously the timing of it is not good" for Kerry.

"From now on, until the election, everything like this will have a spotlight put on it, examined very carefully," Lott continued.

More 'Innocent Than It Looks?'

David Gergen, who was an adviser to Clinton and worked with Berger for a time in the White House, said Tuesday, "I think it's more innocent than it looks."

"I have known Sandy Berger for a long time," Gergen said in a television interview. "He would never do anything to compromise the security of the United States." Gergen said he thought that "it is suspicious" that word of the investigation of Berger would emerge just as the Sept. 11 commission is about to release its report, since "this investigation started months ago."

Berger testified publicly at one of the commission's hearings about the Clinton administration's approach to fighting terrorism.

Berger had ordered his counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, in early 2000 to write the after-action report and has publicly spoken about how the review brought to the forefront the realization that Al Qaeda had reached America's shores and required more attention.

The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report as it was being refined by the Clinton administration. The Archives is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.

In the FBI search of his office, Berger also was found in possession of a small number of classified note cards containing his handwritten notes from the Middle East peace talks during the 1990s, but those are not a focal point of the current criminal probe, according to officials and lawyers.

Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey.

Berger immediately returned all the notes he had taken, and conducted a search and located two copies of the classified documents on a messy desk in his office, Breuer said. An Archives official came to Berger's home to collect those documents but Berger couldn't locate the other missing copies, the lawyer said.

Breuer said Berger was allowed to take handwritten notes but also knew that taking his own notes out of the secure reading room was a "technical violation of Archive procedures, but it is not all clear to us this represents a violation of the law."

Justice officials have informed the Sept. 11 commission of the Berger incident and the nature of the documents in case commissioners had any concerns, officials said. The commission is expected to release its final report on Thursday.

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 31, 2006 11:27 AM

Karim,
Sorry to ask, but proof of what? I'm not sure I know what specific thing you are referencing.

Alex Ham,
You state:"Hey Sully it appears John doesn't quote articles from sources such as the New York Times which fabricates stories based on forged documents. So you're not winning anyone over with that accusation."

I don't think Sully was referencing the articles John posted stating they were from the NY times or as you say, that he doesn't. I believe he may have been refering to both John's cut and paste of an article by David Limbaugh, with no link or mention that it was not his own work. With the exception of one or two paragraphs attacking myself and other posters on this site, this post,
'Posted by: John | Jan 30, 2006 12:00:21 PM ' is largely a cut and paste from this site: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2006/01/27/184027.html
Either John is actually David Limbaugh, or her was attempting to pass someone else work off as his own. Sully may have also been refering to the fact that John was posting articles without links and/or authors, making it difficult to fact check.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 11:48 AM

like simply trying to sway by volume with no personal content wasn't allowed...

Posted by: gee if this were my website....I'd want to set some rules... | January 31, 2006 11:59 AM

gee you're a fat guy.


just because someone else has commited a crime, doesn't make it alright for you to or for someone that you're backing....

the tom delay stance won't work here...

evil is still evil....the more you make a wind to try and hide that the easier it will be to find you...it's called fear, and it stinks.


here's looking at you kid.

Posted by: again..... | January 31, 2006 12:06 PM

Hey, Main Man and Alex:

Try this website out for Republican wrongdoing:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/194133/16
According to it "138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations". It lists the worst violators including Oliver North.

If you want to see the republican view of the world and how they would like it to be check out this website:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/saipan/abc040100.html
It describes the republican supported sweatshops in American Saipan and the dispicable conditions the workers live in. It also quotes Delay as touting Saipan's sweatshops as a model for America. I dare you to read it. Christians might be interested in the forced abortions of Saipan workers which Delay implicitely supports.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 12:26 PM

I agree proud of John if I was voting and had to vote for any of the democrats above it would be like voting for Al-Zawahiri.
Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | Jan 31, 2006 10:55:28 AM

Instead, Alex Ham votes for the Republican government that can't get the job done when it comes to killing al-Zawahiri or capturing bin Laden. A vote for incompetent Republicans that can't bring Al Qaeda leaders to justice helps the terrorists more than a vote for the Democrats.
The War On Terror cannot be trusted to the likes of John, Alex Ham, JT Flyer, and the corrupt, inept politicians they blindly support. Too many conservatives within the Republican base show a dangerous amount of extremism, hysteria, and ignorance when it comes to the War On Terror. In fact, GOP propoganda outlets the likes of Rush Limbaugh and FOXnews promote such a mentality. Promoting hysteria and hate may fire up the base and assure certain votes for the Republicans, but it won't win the War On Terror or bring Al Qaeda to justice.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 12:28 PM

Here's how the democrats intend to win the war on terror, give talking points to our enemies! Wow tough cookies you really are. This is another cut & paste for my man John come back and join us!

Bin Laden Echoes Dem War Critics

Osama bin Laden is nothing if not a quick study - as his audiotaped message, replete with echoes of complaints from Iraq war critics on Capitol Hill, amply shows.

In fact, the terror mastermind invoked one Democratic Party talking point after another in his bid to convince America that George Bush was leading to U.S. down the path to ultimate destruction.

When Ted Kennedy, for instance, complained last year that Saddam Hussein's torture prisons had been reopened "under U.S. management," Osama was clearly listening.

Warming to Kennedy's theme, the al Qaeda chief griped:


"Jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality . . . . As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons."
Bin Laden also borrowed a page from top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who announced after last July's train bombings in London that President Bush's "fight them there, not here" strategy plainly wasn't working.

"The mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries," Osama proclaimed. "The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition."

And it appears that bin Laden agrees with Sen. John Kerry's condemnations of President Bush's premature "Mission Accomplished" declaration, with the terror kingpin decrying the episode as the "fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier."

Bin Laden also paid homage to Delaware Democrat Joe Biden, who regularly turns up on TV to complain that security in Iraq is no better than when the U.S. invaded three years ago, and that troops privately confide in him that their predicament is perilous.

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 12:43 PM

Someone has been using my name to post their own thoughts. Not that I care but it would be nice if only I used that name to lessen confusion.
The last thing that I (the true Alex Ham) posted is the following:

It's no use John, the libs run this site. They'll always come back with some b.s. after you've shown evidence to the contrary. No need to worry though. By November, they will have dropped the ball.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 12:43 PM

Hey ErrinF here's how the democrats fight the war on terrorism, they give our enemies the technology, brilliant!! By the way answer the question when was the last time you were alone with a man? For you Johhny!!!

Clinton Scheme Gave Iran Nuke Blueprints

In a hairbrained scheme that was personally approved by then-President Clinton, the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program.

The allegation, detailed in the new book "State of War," by New York Times reporter James Risen, comes as the Iranian nuclear crisis appears to be coming to a head, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urging that Israel be "wiped off the map" and his government announcing last week that it will resume uranium enrichment on Monday.

Reports Risen: "It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan [to give Tehran nuclear blueprints] was first approved by Clinton."

Beginning in February 2000, the CIA recruited a Russian scientist who had defected to the US years earlier. His mission: Take the nuclear blueprints to Vienna to sell them - or simply give them - to the Iranian representatives for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Dubbed "Operation Merlin," the plan was supposed to steer Iranian physicists off track by incorporating design flaws in the blueprints that would render the information worthless.
But in what may turn out to be one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of all time, Operation Merlin backfired when the Russian scientist spotted the design flaws immediately - and even offered to help Iran fix the problems.

Risen said the Clinton-approved plan ended up handing Tehran "one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short."

He noted that thanks to the bizarre operation, Iran could now "leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon."

Ironically, Risen's New York Times has declined to cover Mr. Clinton's Iranian nuclear debacle - concentrating instead on his book's dubious claims that the National Security Agency was first authorized to commence domestic wiretapping by President Bush.

Still, with Operation Merlin going so badly off track, "State of War's" revelations certainly warrant the kind of full blown congressional investigation now planned for the wiretap pseudo-scandal.
Risen's report could also have a serious implications for Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Mrs. Clinton has been sharply critical of President Bush's handling of the Iranian nuclear crisis, complaining that a nuclear-armed Tehran would be a much more serious threat to the U.S. than Iraq.

Posted by: Alex Ham - American Hero | January 31, 2006 12:47 PM

Any of my fellow debaters I've exchanged thoughts with know that I never post these 5,000 word blogs. I know the name is clever but you shouldn't steal it from me.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 12:49 PM

redcoat in waiting....


leading them back into the woods....


why it's avirgina ham.

Posted by: Benidictions arnold... | January 31, 2006 12:52 PM

Here's an excerpt from a new topic over at 'The Fix'. I'd like to see the GOP apologists here cheerlead their way out of this one:

Club For Growth Poll Spells Trouble For GOP

A new survey commissioned by the Club For Growth forebodes major problems for congressional Republicans at the ballot box unless, the conservative group says, a change is made in the House GOP leadership.
The survey of voters in 20 congressional districts currently held by GOP incumbents shows Republicans
struggling both in generic match-ups against Democrats and on the specific issues of corruption and ethics.
There appears to be little good news in the data for Republicans.  Only 29 percent of the sample said America was on the "right track" at the moment compared to 62 percent who said it had gone off in the "wrong direction." President Bush was viewed favorably by 40 percent and unfavorably by 52 percent -- roughly in keeping with his ratings nationwide in a series of recent polls. Republicans in Congress rated a 35 percent favorable score and a 45 percent unfavorable score -- not much different than congressional Democrats who had a 34/39 favorable-unfavorable score.
The corruption issue appears to be a major problem for Republicans.  Asked what "issue or action" the respondents most associated with the current Republican leadership, "corrupt/dishonest" ranked second behind only Iraq in voters' minds.  And when asked to describe the "level of ethical misconduct in Congress today," 80 percent of those tested said the transgressions were either "serious" (50 percent) or "scandalous" (30 percent).  Only 14 percent described them as "minor."

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 12:59 PM

Sorry to hear that Alex ham however; I enjoyed your post even if it wasn't you! Here's for John an article written by a democrat about Ted Kennedy. Imploding party guys.

Former Democratic Chief Counsel: Ted Kennedy Disgraced Himself

By Jerry Zeifman

In my view (as a Democrat and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee), Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has disgraced himself and our party by misusing his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to achieve self-serving partisan ends.

Kennedy was the architect of an unprecedented tactic: using filibusters to polarize the Senate along party lines thus denying the confirmation of qualified conservative judges. In Bush's first term the Senate Democrats used that tactic successfully against at least 10 nominees for judgeships on circuit courts.

Fortunately, Kennedy has failed in his partisan attempt to deny Judge Alito a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. [Editor's Note: Get the bestselling book about Ted Kennedy's hypocrisy -- Go Here. ]

This occurred largely because Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska formed a non-partisan coalition of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to oppose filibusters, except in extraordinary cases.

Filibusters first arose after the Civil War as a means of defeating legislation intended to foster desegregation. They were an anathema to those of us who joined Martin Luther King's famous March on Washington in 1963.

Fifteen years later during the Clinton administration filibusters were presumably also abhorrent to Senator Kennedy, who then wanted to outlaw them entirely. On Jan. 28, 1998, he argued:

"The president and the Senate do not always agree [on judicial nominations]. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting 'yes' or 'no.'"

Three years later Kennedy put politics above principle and became a champion of the filibuster. He also threatened to boycott any work of the Senate that was not essential for national security if a Republican majority was trying to outlaw filibusters by amending the Senate rules.

Subsequently, in a badgering cross-examination of Judge Alito, Kennedy tried to portray him as an undercover enemy of equal rights for women and minorities.

For me, Kennedy's effort to impugn Judge Alito's integrity was reminiscent of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who tarred his victims with the brush of guilt by association. Kennedy's charge against Alito was based on the fact that 34 years ago, while a reserve officer in the Army, he joined a Princeton alumni group that opposed the banning of ROTC programs from the university's campus. Some members of the group (other than Alito) wanted Princeton to continue its traditional policy of denying admission to women.

They also opposed affirmative action programs based on quotas. (Quota-bases programs were subsequently prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

On Jan. 17, NewsMax reported a story that most of the liberal media ignored: Kennedy had admitted his own membership in the Owl Club, which does not allow women, and was banned from the Harvard campus. He had paid dues to the all-male club ever since his student days.

Faced with evidence of his hypocrisy, Kennedy said, "I am going to get out of it as fast as I can."

Aside from the Senator's association with an all-male club there is other more substantial evidence of flaws in Kennedy's character: Kennedy had been expelled from Harvard for paying a friend to take a Spanish exam for him.

He also has a history of mistreating women. In July 1969, with Mary Jo Kopechne (his date for the night at a drinking party) beside him in his car, Kennedy drove off the side of a bridge on Cape Cod at Chappaquiddick on Cape Cod.

When the car began to submerge in water the Senator escaped. Mary Jo remained in the car and drowned.

At that time Joan Kennedy, the Senator's wife, was pregnant. Traumatized by the scandal and by her husband's philandering, she had a miscarriage. She then started to drink her way into alcoholism. Eventually she went into psychiatric treatment and divorced Kennedy.

To counter the bad reputation he acquired among women because of the Chappaquiddick scandal and his mistreatment of his wife, the Senator pandered to pro-choice feminists -- causing his pro-life detractor to quip, "Libertine men always favor abortion."

At the Senate's confirmation hearings Kennedy metaphorically picked up the pro-abortion gauntlet and hoped to deliver Judge Alito's head on a political platter to Washington's most radical feminist groups and other major contributors of campaign money to the Democratic Party.

Finally, anyone interested in the flaws in Kennedy's character should read "The Senator: My Ten Years With Ted Kennedy," by Richard Burke. The author describes how he tried to save the Senator from his personal excesses.

He also provides a behind-the-scenes account of Kennedy's 1980 unsuccessful primary race against then President Jimmy Carter; which hopelessly polarized the Democratic Party - and helped Ronald Reagan move into the White House.

During my own career on Capitol Hill I once told House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill in confidence: "I have a low opinion of Senator Kennedy." He replied discreetly: "The Kennedys are not real Democrats. They have their own party." [Editor's Note: Get the bestselling book about Ted Kennedy's hypocrisy -- Go Here.]

Jerry Zeifman is former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee and a lifelong Democrat. He is also author of "Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon." He is currently hoping to publish "The Dissident Democrat: a Political Memoir." (Send comments to jzeifman@yahoo.com.)

Posted by: Main Man | January 31, 2006 12:59 PM

Perhaps I'm a little confused, but wasn't the topic of this "debate" supposed to be Hamas?

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 01:04 PM

Any of my fellow debaters I've exchanged thoughts with know that I never post these 5,000 word blogs. I know the name is clever but you shouldn't steal it from me.
Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | Jan 31, 2006 12:49:03 PM

True. Whomever is posting falsely with Alex's name appears to be a reactionary too, and yet they are doing their fellow reactionary a disservice by posting and attributing somebody else's name to it. Like I said before, there's too many paper tiger cowards within the GOP... now we have one that doesn't even have the guts to assign their real name to their posts.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 01:05 PM

Perhaps I'm a little confused, but wasn't the topic of this "debate" supposed to be Hamas?
Posted by: D. | Jan 31, 2006 1:04:00 PM

Alex Hamas?

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 01:06 PM

Republican's don't govern on polls like the democrats do. Can you imagine waking up to erinnf every day? Eh. To you Johnny for starting this wonderful blog exposing these people.

I believe General Russel Honore's classic admonition to reporters, "Don't get stuck on stupid," was one of the best lines so far of the new millennium. Part of its enduring value is its uncanny applicability to politics these days.

Honore made the statement to reporters who insisted on asking questions about Katrina when he was trying to focus on Rita. He said there would be plenty of time later to sort through inadequacies in the government's response to Katrina, but for now they need to deal with Rita's impending wrath.

"Don't get stuck on stupid" thus became an instant metaphor - at least to me - for "Quit playing gotcha, quit dwelling in the past, and help us with solutions."

Honore's metaphor perfectly fits the behavior of Washington Democrat politicians and caterwauling liberal loons since 2000 - that's right, the entire millennium, so far. In their singular obsession with George W. Bush - "hatred" is probably more accurate - they have been "stuck on stupid."

To clarify, I'm not calling Washington Democrats and the whacko left fringe stupid. Far from it. I am saying, though, that their perspective has been tainted by their consuming antipathy for George Bush.


They don't even deny their contempt for President Bush but wear it proudly. I think they would deny, however, its irrationality and poisonous effects. Many of them seem to think it's a completely rational reaction to his "contemptible" policies, particularly the war with Iraq. What they don't tell you is that their ill will for him significantly preceded our invasion of Iraq, which many of them, by the way, supported.

Their unhealthy hatred for Mr. Bush dates back to the 2000 election, which they - irrationally again - believe he stole from Mr. Gore. The fact is, Mr. Gore was trying to steal the election himself and almost succeeded, through one of the most egregious perversions of the rule of law in our nation's history, by the Florida Supreme Court.

But the real source of their animus is even more basic. They resent him because he represents their expulsion from power over the executive branch, which the Clinton eight-year heyday should have ensured them in perpetuity.

You'll recall that their "entitlement" to the legislative branch was stolen from them in 1994, which is one of the reasons they consider Newt Gingrich another personification of evil. Adding insult to cumulative injury, they've also lost their monopoly on the media over the last 15 years.

The intensity of their blinding hatred for Bush compels them to view all problems through their anti-Bush lenses. How many of them could bring themselves to rejoice, for example, over the historic elections in Iraq and the people's courageous embracing of self-rule and representative government there? And how about their unconscionable politicizing of Katrina? They are stuck on stupid.

Indeed, the real challenge for Democrats, politically, is whether they'll be able to unstick themselves from stupid as we approach the 2008 elections - not to mention 2006. Are they capable of thinking clearly again? Can they offer alternative solutions to the nation's problems, beyond carping at President Bush - who won't be running - and tearing down Republican ideas?

One great irony is that Hillary Clinton figured this out a long time ago. She realized that she needed to rise above this pettiness and demonstrate an appreciation for the global evil we face in the War on Terror, among other things.

But just when she had almost succeeded at extricating herself - opportunistically - from the Democrat "stupid" quagmire, she was jerked right back into it by the formidably powerful crazies that dominate the party today. Hillary just got trounced in an unofficial poll among the far-left kooks - hundreds of thousands of them - and she's understandably nervous. Properly chastened, she's started hurling obligatory invectives at President Bush again.

If Republicans weren't stuck on stupid as well - in an entirely different way - they would have nothing to fear from Democrats in 2008, notwithstanding the enormity of the problems we now face, foreign and domestic. But Republicans just don't seem to know how to be consistently true to the principles they champion. Though a majority of the country probably leans conservative, the GOP is still scared to death to govern that way.

President Bush should ignore the polls and the conventional wisdom that he has lost too much political capital to implement his agenda. He must abandon all fantasies of placating the implacable Left. He should appoint a conspicuously conservative originalist, like Janice Rogers Brown, to replace Justice O'Connor, then proceed to make his income tax cuts permanent, eliminate the estate tax, reform Social Security, reform immigration, cut pork and continue building up Iraqi forces - and let the other guys stick on stupid.

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 01:11 PM

What's your point Main Man? Kennedy is a scumball? You want to compare him to, say, Randy Cunningham? Tom Delay? Oliver North? G. Gordon Liddy? Lee Atwater? Karl Rove?

Hmmm... Karl Rove. Now there is a scoundrel. Lets compare Kennedy's ethics with what good ol' Karl did in his younger days:

"... Rove acknowledges that, in 1970, he used a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, who was running for state treasurer. Once inside, Rove swiped some letterhead stationery and sent out 1,000 bogus invitations to the opening of the candidate's headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing."

You can read it all here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm

Yeap, the republicans sure have the high ground on ethics, yeap!

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 01:20 PM

Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of corruption. This isn't even the topic at hand. You could go back and forth for an eternity with accusations of misbehavior and illegal activity. Politicians are people just like you and I and subject to the same mistakes.
More concerning should be the dangerous set of events that have recently unfolded in Iran, and what our global community plans on doing in response.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 01:26 PM

Alex (the real one?) and D are right. This blog is about Hamas. I expect Hamas to implode. There are two possible scenarios I see playing out:

1) Once Hamas has power, will succumb to it corrupting influence. When that happens the people will toss them aside like they did Fatah, if Hamas lets them.

2) If the West withholds funding I expect Iran to come in with funding. When that happens you will see the West toss Hamas and any funding like a hot potato. Hamas will become the next Hezbollah, financially tied to Iran and its servent.

I guess a thrid scenario is Hamas actually leading the Palestinians toward a peaceful coexistence with Israel as a recognized state, but I don't think they have that in them.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 01:39 PM

Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of corruption. This isn't even the topic at hand. You could go back and forth for an eternity with accusations of misbehavior and illegal activity. Politicians are people just like you and I and subject to the same mistakes.
Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | Jan 31, 2006 1:26:22 PM

Apology after excuse after apology after excuse. The Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal; It all stems from the 'K Street Project', completely devised by the GOP.
While this is not the topic at hand, it does tie in to Hamas in that they were put in power by the Palestinians to replace the corrupt Fatah. The incumbent Canadian government was also thrown out of power due to corruption (it had nothing to do with conservatism). Likewise, the Republicans will face the same fate come election time in America.
However, I didn't post those poll results in reaction to Hamas. Rather, in reaction to conservative extremists currently blathering away in this blog. As expected, the reactionaries here are doing an ostrich act on the whole Abramoff scandal. It is telling how easily they forgive the corrupt, illegal practices of Republican politicians, practices that only serve to weaken our national security. If the lockstep Republican zombies here think their usual routine of blame-the-Democrats/excuse-the-Republicans is going to win in 2006, they've got another thing coming come Election Day. By all means, ignore the polls and the peril your party is in. It's too late anyway, losers. It'll take a miracle for the Republicans to retain power after all the corruption and cronyism that has been exposed among their ranks.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 01:56 PM

Sully -
The 3rd scenario is definitely a stretch. Though it's the worst of the 3 possibilities I see scenario 2 as the most likely. The people of Iran seem to believe Hamas is their new saving grace because everything else thus far has failed. It seems fairly desperate to put their trust in such an entity. Now that the permanent UN members have voted to report Iran to the Security Council, the chances of an ensuing conflict increase.

On a separate note, congratulatons to Alito. (52-48)

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 02:02 PM

Sorry, that's 58-42.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 02:03 PM

Again here's how the democrats fight the war on terror they either give them our secrets or like Hillary they become silent partners. Can you imagine what ErrinF look like? she probably where's horned rimmed glasses and looks like Al Gor!


2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time last Thursday denouncing Hamas after the terror group's big win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

But as noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson pointed out when Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, relations between the top Democrat and supporters of the notorious anti-Israeli organization haven't always been so chilly.

In fact, in a November 2000 report on OpinionJournal.com headlined "Hillary and Hamas," Emerson noted that Mrs. Clinton "has met repeatedly" over the years with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations."

Hillary launched her outreach program to U.S. Muslim leaders beginning in 1996. But as terror expert Emerson observed: "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations."


Among the most troubling terror-friendly groups cultivated by the former first lady was the American Muslim Council, an organization that had "clearly established a record in support of radical Islam," he said.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, the AMC vigorously defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman - whose followers carried out the attack - as a "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system."

The blind sheik is now serving a life sentence in connection with that attack and other plots to blow up New York City landmarks.

Another group that benefited from Mrs. Clinton's Muslim outreach program was the Islamic Relief Association, which Emerson noted, "clearly has a militant agenda."

Less than three weeks before a top official with the group met with Mrs. Clinton, the association held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant.

At the time, noted Emerson, "Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S."
Another organization embraced by Mrs. Clinton was the Muslim Women's League and its parent group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which Hillary lauded in a May 1996 speech for fighting against "hatred."

Three months before, however, MPAC had defended a bus bombing in Jerusalem and called the Israeli response a "terrorist act."

Three years earlier, apparently before the group launched its supposed anti-hate campaign, MPAC issued a statement decrying Israel for its "unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights."

Concluded Emerson: "A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 02:05 PM

Democrats & Abramoff all in black & white and what they took! Republican scandal? I don't thinks so Errin F! By the way Errinf go take a bath you smell!


Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received:


Max Baucus
(D-MT)

Received At Least $22,500

Evan Bayh
(D-IN)

Received At Least $6,500

Joseph Biden
(D-DE)

Received At Least $1,250


Jeff Bingaman
(D-NM)

Received At Least $2,000

Barbara Boxer
(D-CA)

Received At Least $20,250

Maria Cantwell
(D-WA)

Received At Least $21,765


Tom Carper
(D-DE)

Received At Least $7,500

Hillary Clinton
(D-NY)

Received At Least $12,950

Kent Conrad
(D-ND)

Received At Least $8,000


Jon Corzine
(D-NJ)

Received At Least $7,500

Chris Dodd
(D-CT)

Received At Least $14,792

Byron Dorgan
(D-ND)

Received At Least $79,300


Dick Durbin
(D-IL)

Received At Least $14,000

Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA)

Received At Least $2,000

Russ Feingold
(D-WI)

Received At Least $1,250


Tom Harkin
(D-IA)

Received At Least $45,750

Daniel Inouye
(D-HI)

Received At Least $9,000

Jim Jeffords
(I-VT)

Received At Least $2,000


Tim Johnson
(D-SD)

Received At Least $14,250

Ted Kennedy
(D-MA)

Received At Least $3,300

John Kerry
(D-MA)

Received At Least $98,550


Mary Landrieu
(D-LA)

Received At Least $28,000

Pat Leahy
(D-VT)

Received At Least $4,000

Carl Levin
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,000


Joe Lieberman
(D-CT)

Received At Least $29,830

Blanche Lincoln
(D-AR)

Received At Least $14,891

Barbara Mikulski
(D-MD)

Received At Least $10,550


Patty Murray
(D-WA)

Received At Least $78,991

Bill Nelson
(D-FL)

Received At Least $20,168

Ben Nelson
(D-NE)

Received At Least $5,200


Barack Obama
(D-IL)

Received At Least $7,500

Mark Pryor
(D-AR)

Received At Least $2,300

Jack Reed
(D-RI)

Received At Least $3,500


Harry Reid
(D-NV)

Received At Least $68,941

John Rockefeller
(D-WV)

Received At Least $4,000

Senator Ken Salazar
(D-CO)

Received At Least $4,500


Paul Sarbanes
(D-MD)

Received At Least $4,300

Chuck Schumer
(D-NY)

Received At Least $29,550

Debbie Stabenow
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,250


Ron Wyden
(D-OR)

Received At Least $6,250

Posted by: Main Man | January 31, 2006 02:10 PM

Hey main man this is good stuff! And the democrats are accusing republicans of being the only people involved with Abramoff? Where did you find this I want to send out to people. What a bunch of hypocrits!

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 02:18 PM

What a desperate bunch of liars you all are in defense of these corrupt Republican politicians. That's just a list of indian tribe donations you are trying to manipulate into being an indictment of the Democrats. The same tribes donated to the same candidates before they ever hired Jack Abramoff. Truth is, their donations to Democrats decreased after Abramoff was hired by them.
Polls show that you cannot muddy the waters on this: Jack Abramoff was a Republican, and everybody knows that. His chief co-conspirator in the fraud he perpetuated on the indian tribes was an aide to Tom DeLay! Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay started the 'K Street Project' which was deliberately about making lobbyists beholden to the Republican party (and vice versa). Only Republicans went on golf trips to Scotland with Abramoff, used his stadium box seats for sporting events, or ate at his restaurant for free.
Again, stick to this ostrich act of yours, you right wing wackos. Your juvenile delusions will only create an even greater loss for the corrupt Republicans in 2006.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 03:07 PM

Here's another thing for these reactionary losers to ignore:

"Bush addresses the nation as polls show barely 4 in 10 Americans approve of the job he is doing, the worst standing of any president at the start of their sixth year with the exception of Richard Nixon, who would resign later that year over the Watergate scandal. Though Republicans now hold majorities in both houses of Congress, their grip on power is threatened, and the most sweeping initiatives proposed by Bush last year did not even come to votes."

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 03:09 PM

What a pure right-wing lie. Please note, the following statement is a lie:

"Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients"

A truthful statement would be:

"Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from associates of Jack Abramoff and Indian tribe clients"

Do you see the difference? None of the money Main Man is listing came directly from Casino Jack. But it sure sounded like it did didn't it? Some of the "Abramoff-related" money comes from Greenberg Traurig's political action committee. It regularly gives money to members of both parties.

Just another conservative right-wing lie that leads one to believe the republicans are no worse than the democrats.

Now Roy Blunt joined Tom DeLay in returning his Abramoff contributions that came directly from Abramoff but keep the money donated by associates and tribal clients. So Roy and Tom think its ok to keep the type of money that was given to the democrats, so what's your point Main Man???

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 03:10 PM

What is just as sad as this lie being spread is JT Flyer eagerly believing it and wanting to spread it further. There is your right-wing conspiracy folks. Lies being spread by those who want to believe the lie.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 03:13 PM

Funny that as soon as John 'leaves,' a bunch of individuals come forth with similar writing styles and methods of posting stories, similar name calling, and many saying 'for you, John/Johnny' and clapping him on the back in a mastabatory fashion. Also funny to note that whoever was posting under Alex Ham's name used the same style in at least one of the posts.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 03:16 PM

I know Freedom. I would start posting as "The Real Alex Ham," but he might start using that. He stopped posting under my name once I called him out on it. I think he just felt alone in his views on here (I can relate) and thought he'd be more convincing if he created some backup. John, JTFlyer, and Main Man are all the same person. We've chatted before Freedom. You know it's not my nature to post articles or "facts" from websites. In my opinion that's not what this blog is for. We all pay attention to current events in our own way and have strong opinions or else we wouldn't feel the need to discuss them here.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 03:31 PM

Re: Karl Rove - To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, "He may be a sonovabitch, but he's OUR sonuvabitch."

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 03:39 PM

OK, not sure how my last comment got posted all the way at the bottom, considering I submitted it about 2hrs ago. Oh well, out of context now, please disregard.

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 03:42 PM

Hey D
The bottom is new here. Other Post blogs have their new posts at the top. Its ugly I know but the Post hasn't fixed it yet.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 03:49 PM

Um ... anyone want to talk about Hamas, or are we done here?

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 04:04 PM

How sad that John/MainMan/JTFlyer had to drum up false support for his extremist views. Just goes to show what lengths extremists will go to. Perhaps he should go back to his original handle... SiliconDoc.
What's lame is that he involved Alex Ham unfairly in his false portrayal of himself as other debaters. Why falsely portray somebody who is on your side of the debate? If this John is so eager to go after the Democrats that he'd trample over his fellow conservatives to do so, the GOP is in bigger trouble than I thought. You all better stick together A LOT better than that if you hope to minimalize the amount of Republican loss this election year (not that there's much you can do at this point).

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 04:25 PM

Well since no one wants to talk about Hamas does anyone want to talk about this article in today's Post:

"Gonzales Queried on Wiretaps"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html

It seems that last year Russ Fiengold asked Gonzales during his confirmation hearing, where I presume he was under oath, whether the president could expand his power and do something like spy on Americans without a warrant. Gonzales responded that it was a hypothetical and said that he expected the president to not break the law. His quoted words were that it is: "not the policy or the agenda of this president".

If this is true Gonzales lied, or at least mislead Congress, under oath. I'll predict this to be the headline tomorrow. I expect Gonzales to say he was protecting a secret program that Congress knew about. Yea right...

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 04:26 PM

ErrinF -
I think you might be surprised come election day. The Dems might gain some seats but it won't be the landslide you're projecting. Let's not forget that most states will still vote for their incumbent or stay with a particular party. Don't put too much emphasis on biased polls. History shows they prove nothing.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 04:29 PM

Heck with the wiretaps...looks like we all have a bigger problem on our hands.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/31/ap2489507.html

So with Iran stepping in to be Hamas' new daddy, how long before the Israeli's strike?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1138622510390

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 04:32 PM

Oh, another sign of the end times...lol

http://cindyforsenate.blogspot.com/

Hell, I'll bet you'll find more Republicans donating to the campaign than anyone else!

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 04:35 PM

Anyone who votes for that psycho Cindy Sheehan is a moron. Then again it is California so anything can happen. She was meeting, siding with, and blowing Hugo "America is After My Meaningless Ass" Chavez. She doesn't even have the right to call herself an American anymore and she's going to run for Senate. Someone should set her tent on fire.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 04:41 PM

The Forbes article in interesting and will be big if the IAEA's report that is soon to come out says what Forbes is reporting. I'm still banking on China to keep Iran in line. They want their oil so they will do everything they can to make sure Iran does nothing stupid.

As for the second article, I doubt Iran is making bombs. And if the article were true and they had one or two bombs, that would not "wipe Israel off the map", but Israel's and maybe the US response would.

Hamas really needs to carefully consider who they want as their sugar daddy since their existance and that of the Palestinians is at stake.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 04:42 PM

Is that you Alex, or is it John/MainMan/Alex?

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 04:44 PM

Sorry Sully it's me. I just got a little carried away. It happens sometimes.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 04:45 PM

Alex,
No worries. I thought that John's supporters looked fishy before your name was co-opted. I'm honestly wondering if this was all satire or made to be an obvious joke, because it was executed with all the guile and skill of a middleschool student.

I also agree with your statement that Repubs won't lose as many (if any... won't know until voting occurs because a lot can change in the next few months) as being predicted. The Repubs aren't looking great, but the Dems don't look that much better.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 04:47 PM

Heh, sadly Alex, I have to agree with you again on your assessment of Sheehan. while I don't feel nearly as strongly as you in terms of her, I think she is a large detriment to the party who she thinks shes helping. Between her and Kerry, I can't help but shake my head everytime I think about the future of the democratic party.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 04:51 PM

I can speak for myself you people are a bunch of losers.


Monday, Jan. 9, 2006 9:03 a.m. EST
Howard Dean in Abramoff Cash Fib

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Dems - including Sen. Hillary Clinton - have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.

That little detail didn't faze Dean, however - who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.

Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."
Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.
Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Sens. Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski - as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.

Posted by: JT Flyer | January 31, 2006 04:52 PM

More facts about the real corruption party. This ones for you Jon these liberals are moron's!


Hillary Clinton Campaign Acknowledges Violation

Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign committee likely violated the law when it underreported $1 million-plus in campaign contributions from Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, according to a four-year investigation by the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC found "there was probable cause to believe New York Senate 2000 and Andrew Grossman, in his official capacity as [the campaign's] treasurer, violated 2 U.S.S Sec 434(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and 11 C.F.R. Sec 102(c)(8)(i)(A)."

"On December 13, 2005, a conciliation agreement signed by Andrew Grossman was accepted by the Commission," the FEC said.

Under the agreement worked out with the campaign, "New York Senate 2000" will pay a $35,000 fine and amend its public reports to show that Paul's share of production costs for a gala Aug. 13, 2000 Clinton fundraiser were understated by $721,895.

The FEC agreement represents a significant victory for Mr. Paul, who - beginning in June 2001 - has repeatedly alleged that Mrs. Clinton and top officials with her campaign deliberately underreported his contribution to her Senate bid, which was the biggest of its kind in U.S. political history.
Mrs. Clinton's campaign finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted last year on charges that he knowingly filed false reports with the FEC related to Paul's Hollywood event. But this latest agreement suggests that other campaign officials may be responsible for the same kind of violation.

In a message posted Thursday to his blog, peterfpaul.com, the one-time Hillary supporter urged the authorities to follow up on the FEC findings.

"Now that Hillary's treasurer admitted to making the false FEC reports that David Rosen was indicted and tried for, will the Justice Department act?," Mr. Paul wrote. "Will Hillary's role as a co-conspirator, colluder and aider and abettor be reviewed by the Office of Public Integrity and the Senate Ethics Committee, along with her role in misleading the federal investigation that led to Rosen's indictment rather than Grossman's?"

Meanwhile, campaign officials staunchly maintain that Mrs. Clinton was not involved in any illegality.

"This agreement makes clear that there was no violation of federal election law by the Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee in connection with the August 13, 2000 event," campaign lawyer Marc Elias told the New York

Posted by: Main Man | January 31, 2006 04:55 PM

Now post as MainMan and pat yourself on the back for what a great job you've done. Talk about a loser... : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 04:59 PM

Damn! He posted as MainMan right as I was posting my last post. He sure is quick to respond to his own posts. What a joker! LOL! : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 05:00 PM

Here's one for you John and our liberal friends documented proof in writing of the corrupt DEMOCRATS in the MINOROTY PARTY! This is a long list.


William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1873. Indicted in on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

Posted by: Larry O | January 31, 2006 05:01 PM

Its kinda sad, really, what's happened to the Democrats in the last few years. They just seem, so, desparate. Its kinda embarrassing, actually. The republicans need to clean up their house, return to the whole smaller-is-better approach to government and keep the religious wingnuts at bay but unless there is some really damaging scandal (not that MSM hasn't been trying to manufacture one over the last 6 years) the dems aren't going to gain a whole lot of seats. Actually, they may stand to lose some governorships if I've read correctly.

But, its a long way till November.

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 05:02 PM

Huh, I see our middle school prankster is back.

Posted by: D. | January 31, 2006 05:04 PM

Heh, exactly Errin. He types one line, then copies and pastes an article from some obscure link, with no way for us to check on these stories. Either there are a bunch of people who coincidentally all write the same way and have decided (for reasons unknown) to structure their posts the same way, or we have one poster. I can't wait for them to get smart enough to type out long posts in word, and then post them at almost the same time, in response to my comment. Or better yet, get a friend to log on (assuming they have any) and post for them.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:05 PM

And Larry O has arrived on the scene, following suit.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the trifecta.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:06 PM

D,
I agree with you. While I disagree largely with the republican party as it is now (so much for small gov) I don't see the democratic party as being any better. By and large, a lot of them don't seem to know what they are doing. From a PR perspective, in an age where everything is saved, monitored, and accesible digitally, too many democrats make careless errors. To be fair, republicans tend to do the same. But as the party in power, they have less to lsoe by doing it.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:09 PM

Larry O,
What documented proof in writing? There is no way to validate what you write. By your logic and standards, the following, which I will now validate in documented, written proof, is true:The Earth is Flat.
Try not to fall off the edge.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:12 PM

More examples of how our wonderful cut & run democrats would fight the war on teror. We love you John!


Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006 1:39 p.m. EST
John Kerry Touts al-Qaida Successes

In quotes sure to bring delight to Osama bin Laden and his followers, Sen. John Kerry said Sunday that the reason the U.S. homeland hasn't been attacked by al-Qaida since 9/11 is because the terror group is having so much success against U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Many people surmise that one of the reasons we haven't been attacked here, is because they are being so successful at doing what they need to do to attack us in Iraq and elsewhere," the failed presidential candidate told ABC's "This Week."

Kerry was responding to comments Friday by chief White House advisor Karl Rove, who credited President Bush with "protecting America against attacks."

"He is winning the war against terrorism, promoting liberty in regions of the world that have never known it," Rove told a Republican gathering in Washington, D.C.

Rove complained that Democrats like Kerry still had "a pre-9/11 worldview."
On Thursday, bin Laden released an audiotaped message that seemed to echo comments by Bush administration critics, including Sen. Kerry.

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed "almost the same" sentiments that Kerry had in the past, "CBS Evening News" anchorman Bob Schieffer told WABC Radio's Mark Simone: "Well, he did. That's exactly right."

But Schieffer cautioned that he couldn't be sure whether bin Laden was consciously borrowing from Kerry.

"You can never know about things like that," the veteran newsman explained. "But [bin Laden's] people seem to have tremendous access. And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world. Perhaps he did."

Posted by: Proud of John | January 31, 2006 05:13 PM

Let me reprhase that. From what you have written Larry O, the only way to validate what you have said is research. It has the same gumption as me stating that the earth is flat, without listing sources or proof. Then again, all of the Johnesque posts make claims without offering a way to validate said claims.

I do not attack the claims so much as the idea that from how you wrote and presented them, there is no way that it can be considered as documented proof. There is no documentation other than your say-so.

Please forgive my previous post in which I failed in my attempt to express what I was thinking correctly.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:16 PM

Don't put too much emphasis on biased polls. History shows they prove nothing.
Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | Jan 31, 2006 4:29:10 PM

That wasn't a biased poll. It was done by the Club For Growth, a conservative group that focused on 20 districts that could shift power in the House to the Democrats. In each one, the Republicans are currently losing. If you want to ignore that, then expect a bigger loss come Election Day than you currently imagine. The president is unpopular, the Iraq War is unpopular, and the Republican-controlled Congress is unpopular, besieged by corruption and scandal. Sure, the Democrats aren't so popular either, but it's a two-party system, and Americans often vote for the lesser of two evils come election time. Incumbency won't play as prominent a role in an election year when corruption is an issue, and those in power may suffer rather then benefit from their incumbency.
But be casual about the situation, if you like. In fact, why should conservatives even bother voting in 2006 if they're so sure the Democrats can't win? It's going to be an uphill battle for the Right this time around, so maybe you should just throw in the towel now and accept the 'minimal' losses you now project. Griping about Kerry and Sheehan certainly won't save you.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 05:19 PM

To be fair ErrinF, I believe it was only I who mentioned Kerry. Don't get me wrong. I know who I am voting for and the direction I hope this country takes. But many democrats try to rely on the fact that republicans are looking bad, rather than focusing on the fact that most democrats aren't looking good. I suspect that as it stands, some dems will gain seats. But with current society to date, there is a large possibility that a great deal of people who would most likely choose who they see as the lesser of two evils, won't vote, especially in 06. When people feel there is not much to gain by change, there is often no justification for taking work off to vote.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:24 PM

Hey Freedom you're right its easy to access your idiot Senators such as Kerry making comments like this. If I am voting and I know a Senator whether it be Republican or Democrat is giving talking points to the enemy I wouldn't vote for them! This is our point this is the philosophy of the new fringe nut case liberal left! Good luck winning in 06 & 08 with this agenda. We will continue to throw this back at you hypocrits so be prepared. There is a reason why the democrats are in the minority and you people need to find another away other than hatred for our country.


Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006 11:03 a.m. EST
Bob Schieffer: Osama bin Laden Used John Kerry's Talking Points

9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden may have borrowed some of Sen. John Kerry's talking points for the audiotaped message he released on Thursday - veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer said Saturday.

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed "almost the same" sentiments that Kerry did during an appearance on Schieffer's "Face the Nation" broadcast in December, the CBS anchorman told WABC Radio's Mark Simone: "Well, he did. That's exactly right."

Back then, Kerry complained to Schieffer: "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids."

In his message, bin Laden also complained that the U.S. was terrorizing Iraqi innocents, saying that "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands."

Schieffer said he wasn't sure whether bin Laden was consciously borrowing from Kerry, but he added it was possible.
"You can never know about things like that," he told Simone. "But these people seem to have tremendous access. And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world. Perhaps he did."

Posted by: Proud of John | January 31, 2006 05:24 PM

Why does this guy John make posts using other handles? And why do these posts profess unwavering love and support for himself? Wow, the crackpot Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Coultier club really attracts some winners to the Republican ranks.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 05:26 PM

Dear Latest edition of the inane person behind the multiple alts,
I find it hard to take your message of "you people need to find another away other than hatred for our country" seriously after you attack anyone that disagrees with you and resort to name calling.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:30 PM

To be fair ErrinF, I believe it was only I who mentioned Kerry. Posted by: Freedom | Jan 31, 2006 5:24:36 PM

The freak that posts to himself mentioned Kerry in one of his many posts in support of 'John' (i.e. the dominant personality of his multiple personae).
I still feel this election is not so much about Republican vs. Democrat as a party in power vs. a party out of power. In a two party system, with corruption a prominent issue, the party in power is often removed from power, replaced by the party formally out of power. Coupled with dissatisfaction over the President, there is enough historical basis and current poll data to support the assertion that the Democrats do indeed have control of the Congress within their grasp in 2006.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 05:40 PM

ErrinF,
Ah, I thought you had addressed that to Alex. My mistake. While I certainly hope you are right regarding the election, I forsee a problem in democrats not being strong enough. The republican PR machine is incredible and to be respected. While the party has problems, I have no doubt that by november, the elections will be spun to make the republicans on close to, if not on the same playing field as the democrats, barring another disaster. Unfortunately, the democratic party seems to be having problems maintaining a solid image that can appeal to the masses. Simply running on the idea that 'we're better than your other choice,' did not work well in O4. And trust me, after volunteering in Boston for the DNC that summer, I can tell you that among volunteers even, the feeling that there was problems with the party were rampant.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 05:53 PM

Calm down everyone, just put john et' al (its easy to determine who it is) on your CHE list (ignore it).

As far as the chances for dems and reps this afll, let me tell yuo somehtin about where I live in MD. We had a representative who is republican. She was very good whiich is why she kept winning for many years in a heavily democratic district. Then the '94 republicans came in and turned many in my district off to republicans in general. Our representative ran against a democrat who simply said get rid of the Gingrich supporter. It worked.

This fall you will likely hear the same refrain, except it will be to vote against a Bush/Delay/Hastert supporter. It will likely work well.

Also our govenor put a "hit man" into various departments and he told the heads of those departments to fire influential people who were not republicans. Even the govenor had to distance himself but the smell is overwhelming. He's toast this fall.

I guess what I'm saying is that the stench this republican white house and congress has created will work against them this fall. The democrats need to put up good people with an agenda (which they have on their DNC website). But you're right they simply can't say vote for the person who stinks less.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 05:59 PM

Hey idiot liberals lets lay it out on the table. The 06 election is going to focus primarily on National Security as it was in 04, so when you have your whole terrorist appeasing cut & run party giving talking points to our enemies do you honestly think the majority of americans are going to trust these people such as Kerry complimenting Bin Laden with defeating our troops protecting our national security? You people will never win when it comes to protecting our country, we have your words, nonactions, and your love for people who hate this country. Once again it all goes back to you're an impotent party! You're a party that has been defined by cowards such as John Murtha as a bunch of cut & run sissies. You have till November to overcome that and it will never happen. History has proven when it comes to National Security in time of war people can only trust republicans and will always vote that way so you sissies don't have a prayer. By the way great comments by John I served in Vietnam Kerry. We love you John you inspire us all!

Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006 11:03 a.m. EST
Bob Schieffer: Osama bin Laden Used John Kerry's Talking Points

9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden may have borrowed some of Sen. John Kerry's talking points for the audiotaped message he released on Thursday - veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer said Saturday.

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed "almost the same" sentiments that Kerry did during an appearance on Schieffer's "Face the Nation" broadcast in December, the CBS anchorman told WABC Radio's Mark Simone: "Well, he did. That's exactly right."

Back then, Kerry complained to Schieffer: "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids."

In his message, bin Laden also complained that the U.S. was terrorizing Iraqi innocents, saying that "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands."

Schieffer said he wasn't sure whether bin Laden was consciously borrowing from Kerry, but he added it was possible.
"You can never know about things like that," he told Simone. "But these people seem to have tremendous access. And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world. Perhaps he did."

Posted by: Tuttle | January 31, 2006 06:14 PM

To all you liberals who can't figure out why your in the minority? This is how a majority manly party deals with animals! When you cut & run sissies such as Murtha & the terrorists best friend John Kerry understand this maybe you tiddly winks (Sorry Barney Frank) will get more votes. By the way isn't it great being in a party that supports gay marriages? We love you John for exposing these idiots.


Vice President Cheney: Don't Deal with Terrorists, Destroy Them

WASHINGTON -- Rejecting a suggestion by Osama bin Laden of a negotiated truce in the war on terror, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was only one way to deal with terrorists. "I think you have to destroy them," Cheney said.

The vague offer of a truce - coupled with a threat of another attack on the U.S. - was made in an audiotape released by the Arab television network Al-Jazeera. It brought new attention to the al-Qaida leader after a yearlong lull in his public statements.

U.S. security officials said Thursday there were currently no plans to raise the nation's security threat level because of the new tape.

Counterterror officials said they have seen no specific or credible intelligence to indicate an upcoming al-Qaida attack. Nor have they noticed an uptick in terrorist communications "chatter" - although that can dramatically increase or decrease immediately before an attack.

On the tape, bin Laden warned that his fighters are preparing new attacks in the United States but offered the American people a "long-term truce" without specifying the conditions.

But Cheney, in a television interview, rejected that suggestion, saying "We don't negotiate with terrorists."

"I think you have to destroy them," he told Fox News Channel. "It's the only way to deal with them."

The tape prompted increased security at Los Angeles International Airport and other precautions at the city's port and water and power facilities.

The FBI has asked the 103 joint terrorism task forces and intelligence units at its 56 field offices to re-examine its cases and investigative leads in light of the bin Laden tape. "Do you see something in your area of operation that might be assessed as more significant than it was the day before?" said an FBI official on condition of anonymity because he was discussing an internal FBI communication.

The national terror threat level currently stands at yellow, the middle of five grades, signifying an elevated risk of attack. The government has raised the alert level to orange, signaling a high threat risk, seven times since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"At this time, we lack corroborating information suggesting that al-Qaida is prepared to attack the United States in the near term," said Homeland Security spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich. "But we recognize that al-Qaida remains committed to striking the homeland."

The tape, which Al-Jazeera said was recorded this month, represents bin Laden's first public communication since December 2004. Since then, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, has served as the terror network's public face.

The recording was released only days after U.S. missile attacks in Pakistan that Pakistani officials said killed four senior al-Qaida operatives.

CIA analysts verified the recording as bin Laden's voice. They offered no details about how they reached that conclusion, but in the past the agency has verified authenticity in part by comparing new recordings to earlier messages.

In the tape, bin Laden spoke in a soft voice, as he has in previous recordings, but his tone was flatter than in the past and had an echo, as if recorded indoors. He presented his message with a combination of threats, vows his followers can fight forever and a tone of reconciliation, insisting he wants to offer a way to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He even recommended a book for Americans to read - "The Rogue State," apparently a book of the same title by American author William Blum. He said it offers the path to peace - that America must apologize to victims of the wars and promise never to "interfere" in other nations - though it was not clear if these were conditions for the truce.

Cheney said the tape showed that al-Qaida has been hobbled, because "they didn't have the ability to do anything on video" and because it had been so long since bin Laden had been heard from.

Still, "I think we have to assume that the threat is going to continue for a considerable period of time." the vice president said. "Even if bin Laden were no longer to be a factor, I still think we'd have problems with al-Qaida."

Homeland Security officials alerted states about bin Laden's comments in a routine call Thursday morning, Petrovich said.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said city police deployed additional resources at their airport and "posted signage indicating that bomb sniffing dogs and searches will occur frequently." He described the measures as precautionary.

Sharon Gang, a spokeswoman for District of Columbia Mayor Anthony A. Williams, said the capital was not raising its terror alert level.

Posted by: Larry O | January 31, 2006 06:24 PM

And trust me, after volunteering in Boston for the DNC that summer, I can tell you that among volunteers even, the feeling that there was problems with the party were rampant.
Posted by: Freedom | Jan 31, 2006 5:53:39 PM

I can totally relate, and was burned similarly by the Democrats in 2004. I just think the Abramoff scandal and the Hurricane Katrina debacle trump any great emphasis for the Democrats to put forth much of an agenda besides being the heir apparents in a two party system where the party in power is corrupt and inept.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 06:26 PM

Hey guys chill out till tomorrow let's enjoy a real positive speech by the President tonight exposing these people and the misery they live on a day to day basis. Rest assure they have nothing to go to excite voters in 06 or 08 and if you read some of these threads you can sense defeat already. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: John | January 31, 2006 06:28 PM

Ahahahahahaha.
Honestly John, thank you. That last post totally made my day.


/This has got to be a joke.

Posted by: Freedom | January 31, 2006 06:30 PM

To all you liberals who can't figure out why your in the minority?
Posted by: Larry O | Jan 31, 2006 6:24:07 PM

Maybe they're in the minority because the majority of 'people' here are just one guy claiming to be ten.
Perhaps the problem is that John (posing as Larry O) is a minority of one who falsely portrays himself as a majority of many. What a nutcase! He keeps saying 'We love you, John!' in each of his posts. 'We' is him! Crazy.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 06:32 PM

Did John just tell his imaginary other selves to chill out? LOL! : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 06:34 PM

Sorry John I had to throw this at our lovely neglected friend Errin F. Democrats & Abramoff and Hurricane Katrina who let 200 buses sit knowing 5 days ahead of time a hurricane was coming? Our friends in Louisiana will become a blue state and will get rid of the corrupt racist Nagen! Can't wait for this election. Why was it that everything ran smooth in Mississippi and Houston during the hurricanes? because the republicans in control were competent and knew what the hell they were doing! this is another state you leftists will lose and I guarantee it will be proven in the election you consistent losers!


Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received:


Max Baucus
(D-MT)

Received At Least $22,500

Evan Bayh
(D-IN)

Received At Least $6,500

Joseph Biden
(D-DE)

Received At Least $1,250


Jeff Bingaman
(D-NM)

Received At Least $2,000

Barbara Boxer
(D-CA)

Received At Least $20,250

Maria Cantwell
(D-WA)

Received At Least $21,765


Tom Carper
(D-DE)

Received At Least $7,500

Hillary Clinton
(D-NY)

Received At Least $12,950

Kent Conrad
(D-ND)

Received At Least $8,000


Jon Corzine
(D-NJ)

Received At Least $7,500

Chris Dodd
(D-CT)

Received At Least $14,792

Byron Dorgan
(D-ND)

Received At Least $79,300


Dick Durbin
(D-IL)

Received At Least $14,000

Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA)

Received At Least $2,000

Russ Feingold
(D-WI)

Received At Least $1,250


Tom Harkin
(D-IA)

Received At Least $45,750

Daniel Inouye
(D-HI)

Received At Least $9,000

Jim Jeffords
(I-VT)

Received At Least $2,000


Tim Johnson
(D-SD)

Received At Least $14,250

Ted Kennedy
(D-MA)

Received At Least $3,300

John Kerry
(D-MA)

Received At Least $98,550


Mary Landrieu
(D-LA)

Received At Least $28,000

Pat Leahy
(D-VT)

Received At Least $4,000

Carl Levin
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,000


Joe Lieberman
(D-CT)

Received At Least $29,830

Blanche Lincoln
(D-AR)

Received At Least $14,891

Barbara Mikulski
(D-MD)

Received At Least $10,550


Patty Murray
(D-WA)

Received At Least $78,991

Bill Nelson
(D-FL)

Received At Least $20,168

Ben Nelson
(D-NE)

Received At Least $5,200


Barack Obama
(D-IL)

Received At Least $7,500

Mark Pryor
(D-AR)

Received At Least $2,300

Jack Reed
(D-RI)

Received At Least $3,500


Harry Reid
(D-NV)

Received At Least $68,941

John Rockefeller
(D-WV)

Received At Least $4,000

Senator Ken Salazar
(D-CO)

Received At Least $4,500


Paul Sarbanes
(D-MD)

Received At Least $4,300

Chuck Schumer
(D-NY)

Received At Least $29,550

Debbie Stabenow
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,250


Ron Wyden
(D-OR)

Received At Least $6,250

Posted by: Tuttle | January 31, 2006 06:37 PM

And now John's multiple personalities are arguing with him! John, when your minor personalities start disputing your 'control' persona, it's time to seek professional help.
Man, what a twistedly desperate propogandist. What a pack of lies he posted while falsely portraying himself as more than one person. Pathetic.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 06:44 PM

That's just a list of indian tribe donations you are trying to manipulate into being an indictment of the Democrats. The same tribes donated to the same candidates before they ever hired Jack Abramoff. Truth is, their donations to Democrats decreased after Abramoff was hired by them.
Polls show that you cannot muddy the waters on this: Jack Abramoff was a Republican, and everybody knows that. His chief co-conspirator in the fraud he perpetuated on the indian tribes was an aide to Tom DeLay! Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay started the 'K Street Project' which was deliberately about making lobbyists beholden to the Republican party (and vice versa). Only Republicans went on golf trips to Scotland with Abramoff, used his stadium box seats for sporting events, or ate at his restaurant for free.
Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 31, 2006 3:07:10 PM

I posted this earlier in response to John's dishonest shenanigans. It's still appropriate given that he is continuing to lie about the Abramoff scandal, no matter what name he uses.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 31, 2006 06:50 PM

Save you fingers ErrinF. Don't let John/MainMan/LarryO/Tuttle-and-sometimes-Alex bait you. Just ignore him. He ought to disappear when Bush starts talking tonight ... like the dog staring into the victrola I would imagine.

I agree with a previous post. John is either a middle schooler or Karl Rove. Same mentality those two...

This years elections are for the democrats to loose. I said that in 2004 and Kerry lost it. Its not just that they are disorganized. They have to also battle a determined middle schooler named Rove. But the republicans have screwed up so much the truth should be enough to turn voters against the republicans. Its time to start establishing the truth now before Rove and company start ordering the swiftboaters to torpedo truth contrary to their reality.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 07:24 PM

LOL! Thanks for the reminder Honest John.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 31, 2006 07:31 PM

The truth shall set you free corrupt MINORITY PARTY dream on you people said the same thing in 2000, 02, 04,and now 06. People won't vote for a party that is the mouthpiece for our enemies. Voting for Kerry & Company is like voting for Bin Laden & Al Zawahiri now who do you think mainstrean RED STATE AMERICANS are going to vote for? Dream on corrupt minority party!!! What red state will vote for an enemy of our country? Remember where you heard it Louisiana will be red in 08 thanks to your corrupt Mary Landrum and Racist Nagen!


Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received:


Max Baucus
(D-MT)

Received At Least $22,500

Evan Bayh
(D-IN)

Received At Least $6,500

Joseph Biden
(D-DE)

Received At Least $1,250

Jeff Bingaman
(D-NM)

Received At Least $2,000

Barbara Boxer
(D-CA)

Received At Least $20,250

Maria Cantwell
(D-WA)

Received At Least $21,765

Tom Carper
(D-DE)

Received At Least $7,500

Hillary Clinton
(D-NY)

Received At Least $12,950

Kent Conrad
(D-ND)

Received At Least $8,000

Jon Corzine
(D-NJ)

Received At Least $7,500

Chris Dodd
(D-CT)

Received At Least $14,792

Byron Dorgan
(D-ND)

Received At Least $79,300

Dick Durbin
(D-IL)

Received At Least $14,000

Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA)

Received At Least $2,000

Russ Feingold
(D-WI)

Received At Least $1,250

Tom Harkin
(D-IA)

Received At Least $45,750

Daniel Inouye
(D-HI)

Received At Least $9,000

Jim Jeffords
(I-VT)

Received At Least $2,000

Tim Johnson
(D-SD)

Received At Least $14,250

Ted Kennedy
(D-MA)

Received At Least $3,300

John Kerry
(D-MA)

Received At Least $98,550

Mary Landrieu
(D-LA)

Received At Least $28,000

Pat Leahy
(D-VT)

Received At Least $4,000

Carl Levin
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,000

Joe Lieberman
(D-CT)

Received At Least $29,830

Blanche Lincoln
(D-AR)

Received At Least $14,891

Barbara Mikulski
(D-MD)

Received At Least $10,550

Patty Murray
(D-WA)

Received At Least $78,991

Bill Nelson
(D-FL)

Received At Least $20,168

Ben Nelson
(D-NE)

Received At Least $5,200

Barack Obama
(D-IL)

Received At Least $7,500

Mark Pryor
(D-AR)

Received At Least $2,300

Jack Reed
(D-RI)

Received At Least $3,500

Harry Reid
(D-NV)

Received At Least $68,941

John Rockefeller
(D-WV)

Received At Least $4,000

Senator Ken Salazar
(D-CO)

Received At Least $4,500

Paul Sarbanes
(D-MD)

Received At Least $4,300

Chuck Schumer
(D-NY)

Received At Least $29,550

Debbie Stabenow
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,250

Ron Wyden
(D-OR)

Received At Least $6,250

Posted by: All American | January 31, 2006 07:32 PM

Now he's "All American". An all American pain in the...

I'm outta here.

Posted by: Sully | January 31, 2006 08:00 PM

Just wanted to let you all know in case you weren't watching - my boy is hitting a homerun! Even better than I expected.

Posted by: Alex Ham - America's Hero | January 31, 2006 09:45 PM

All American apparently took honesty lessons from George Bush on how to use true words to create a false impression. You note he said " took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients",

This linked Abramoff and the tribe's donations to other candidates, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that the relatively paltry amounts given to the other politicians was rewarded with political favors compared to the Billions given to Abramoff and his clients, or was directed by Abramoff or connected to Abramoff in any way.

LIke, if you begin every speech on Iraq with a mention of 9-11, 70% of Americans will believe they are connected and you never had to actually say they were. Its the new Republican Family Values at work!


All American, were you just parroting the dishonest crap from Rove and Mehlman without thinking it through or realizing their words were deceptive, or did you willfully attempt to deceive us?

If Enron was a cheat, then everyone their money touched is tainted too. Ken Lay's church took money from Lay and donations from other Enron employees. So obviously the place must be a fraudulent church and should lose their tax exempt status and the pastor lose his position. I mean, if Enron's money stinks everyone who touched it should be slimed too. Call the Food Bank and tell them the food they bought with church donations are no good. Ken Lay's wife's hairdresser ought to be investigated to see how much she got in tips. Their grocer? Sic the FDA on 'em. Their mechanic? Throw the book at 'em!

My mother held retirement stock that gave her $1200 in dividends a year. The company went down for Enron style accounting. She took money from an admitted liar and cheat so obviously she's one too, eh? Let's toss the little old lady in the pokey for taking money she didn't know was tainted!

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 31, 2006 11:06 PM

Alex Ham if you like empty platitudes then your glass was indeed full.

I did appreciate the sudden realization four years after 9-11 that we are addicted to oil. I suppose its better late than never. The NRDC says if passenger cars averaged 40 mpg we'd be free of every single drop of ME oil.

Don't want to squeeze your American sized bod into a 70 mpg Prius? Don't worry. While the Bush family and cronies were raking in unprecedented oil profits and Detroit was dying, Toyota was quietly developing the 2007 Sienna minivan that will get 40 mpg. Thank you for your energy leadership Mr Bush - NOT

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 31, 2006 11:19 PM

Oh, and the hydrogen fuel cells? Guess what? They actually require OIL, and not small amounts of it, to produce. So why would the President pursue them? To reduce pollution, of course.

So why did the President put the hydrogen technology into the place in his speech where he talked about automotive power/oil independence even though hydrogen cells would do very little to decrease our oil dependence since they require large amounts of oil to produce (oil that his family and friends conveniently rake in the bucks from)?

Duh, AVerage American showed us exactly why only a few posts ago. Just link oil independence and hydrogen fuel cells together and people will think they're connected. The actual text of the speech reads: "We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen." He said they were pollution free, he never said they were oil free. But because of the way he crafted the sentence the link is made.

For God's sake its time for some leadership. Entice Toyota to open production within the US to make as many hybrid batteries as they possibly can in the US for the next decade so long as they sell them to Detroit for a fair price. Detroit starts cranking out hybrids with Toyota batteries in them, lots of Americans have jobs in Detroit and making the new batteries for Toyota. There are trickle down effects in the communities. Tax cuts as credits go to people who junk their gas guzzlers for a hybrid instead of Bush's rich cronies, but since Detroit is booming there's lots more people at work to pay taxes and revenue goes up. Those taxes fund American research on improved hybrid batteries. With plenty of tax funds for R and D, in a decade we make a better hybrid than Japan, and Toyota factory bought out by GM. America is ME oil free. And you still get to drive a minivan.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 31, 2006 11:48 PM

Vice President Cheney: Don't Deal with Terrorists, Destroy Them

My parting shot.

Well, get started destroying them then. ANy time now would be nice.

In case you hadn't noticed the Taliban we destroyed is back with a vengeance. The al Qaeda we "disassembled' and killed or destroyed 2/3 of their leadership? They're making phone calls to the US so fast and furious that we can't even stop to get a warrant to listen to them. We decimated their ranks so well that we've overwhelmed the FBI with leads from their calls.

The only thing I can't figure out is, if we disassembled al Qaeda and killed most of their leadership, and we're only listening to calls to or from al Qaeda, why can't we keep up the the calls? ANd if we're only listening to al Qaeda, how is it that what we're getting is an avalanche of false leads including pizza orders? Why is al Qaeda calling Pizza hut from Afghanistan?

Can you explain how destroyed terrorists overwhelm the US with phone calls and pizza orders from overseas?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | January 31, 2006 11:56 PM

Face it Alex, your boy showed up and that was it. It was no home run. he didn;t even swing. He had nothing to talk about except the new fact that we are addicted to oil. Wow, that took brains to figure out. And what is Bush's solution? A 22% increase in one program at the DOE. Wow, I'm so impressed. 22% increase. Why with that they can probably hire 3 more people to study the issue to death while oil companies sneak in the White House back door to tell Bush and Cheney what to do.

Brazil is energy independent because they followed through with what the republicans killed back in the 70s here in the USA. They developed an ethanol industry that today makes them independent of foreign oil. In fact, they are becomming an exporter of ethanol and California is considering importing it. Flex cars have been developed to run on ethanol or gasoline. No mention of pursuing that from Bush. I'm sure his oil buddies, who swore under oath they did not meet with the energy task force when documentation proves they did, have explained to Bush that ethanol is the wrong way to go.

Posted by: Sully | February 1, 2006 09:26 AM

I prefer to judge a State of the Union by the non-applause, which can only be appreciated on TV. Think of Rep. John Lewis's refusal to stand up when the president talked about "our love of freedom." Or Harry Reid's tactless decision to remain seated during the acknowledgement of Roberts and Alito. Or Charles Rangel's hand-sitting act when Bush declared that the U.S. will never surrender to evil. Who couldn't enjoy watching the entire Democratic side of the room lock their keisters in place when the words "Patriot Act" or "tax cuts" were mentioned. Or the sphinx-like stare of some unnamed diplomat in Arab headdress when Bush talked about the "unstable" nations of the Middle East. Then there was the tempest-tossed visage and contorted smile of Kathleen Blanco, Louisiana's dysfunctional governor, when Bush riffed on Katrina. Hillary Clinton retained her trademark humorlessness when her husband's name was the punch line of the speech's one genuine joke. And, of course, there were all those idiotic grimaces on Democratic faces when they applauded the failure to reform Social Security. For all these reasons, the SOU has to be considered a success. Even at his most conciliatory, Bush continues to annoy all the right people.

Posted by: D. | February 1, 2006 09:59 AM

Shame that he gets praise for annoying the 'right' people. Time was in this country, we respected the idea of 'being human,' and respected each others rights to think differently. Perhaps this country wouldn't be in such a mess politically, with horrible amounts of people disapproving the President if the politicos in charge didn't have the same mentality for both Foreign policy as they have for public policy; "Us vs. them." Then again, I guess it doesn't matter that damn near half the country is disillusioned with our adminstration.

Posted by: Freedom | February 1, 2006 10:14 AM

On the future of Hamas:
I imagine they are in an internal quandary right now, but over time some things will prod their action in ways mundane.

Now that they are the officials, when people complain to their Hamas representatives, it will be less about revenge, and more about electricity, running water, and sewage. Personally, I think the world will be better off with Hamas having to deal with such issues. Far more effort is involved in building a power station than in blowing one up.

Posted by: t thompson | February 1, 2006 12:31 PM

Freedom,
Don't bang your head against the wall trying to explain to conservatives why they should be equal to the rest of America. They do not think they are. Here's a great example:

Last night at the SOTU address Cindy Sheehan, who had a ticket to the gallary, was removed from the gallary because she wore a T-shirt that said "2245 dead" or something like that. Also arrested was Beverly Young, the wife of a republican congressman and also had a ticket to the gallary, for wearing a T-shirt that read: "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom". She is outraged as is her husband. Both Cindy and Beverly broke the same rule: protesting in the gallery.

To bad the law is applied equally to all Americans. Guess the republicans just are not used to that.

Posted by: Sully | February 1, 2006 12:47 PM

I'm sure his oil buddies, who swore under oath they did not meet with the energy task force when documentation proves they did, have explained to Bush that ethanol is the wrong way to go.
Posted by: Sully | Feb 1, 2006 9:26:28 AM

Actually, the oil execs were not under oath when they appearred before Congress last year. I forget what reasons the politicians gave (does it matter?), but the execs did not have to testify under oath.

Posted by: ErrinF | February 1, 2006 12:59 PM

You're right ErrinF though lying to Congress is illegal, while under oath or not.

Posted by: Sully | February 1, 2006 01:28 PM

gee if this were my website....I'd want to set some rules...

like simply trying to sway by volume with no personal content wasn't allowed...


you've got people that are interested in making sure that others don't get heard...

eliminate them, now....

moderate......they're trying to control perception by using volume....if it's been posted once don't allow it back in...

help america to emerge into a democracy, don't be manipulated by a-holes....


step on them...

Posted by: | February 1, 2006 04:34 PM

What a lot of non-Hamas BS -- you'd think most of these folk are too dumb to start their own blogs (see blogger.com) if they want to bloviate!

Emily, your 3 possibilites seem to include the most likely idea:
a) Fatah is horribly corrupt, and as long as it is entrenched in power, it will not change.
b) Both Hamas, openly, and Fatah, covertly, support terrorism against Israel.

Hmm; since both support terrorism, but it's known and certain that Fatah is corrupt -- let's boot 'em and #3 see; nobody knows, and c) it can't get any worse for the normal Palestinian.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad | February 1, 2006 05:40 PM

Thank you for the opportunity you have given to ordinary people to express their humble views and to see where their own opinions lie in relation to the rest of the world.

I will miss your Debate and the Safety Valve it has provided for so many of us.

I wish you all the very best in your new job - even if it IS in RADIO!

God Bless you.

Posted by: Rick Clarke | August 12, 2006 09:59 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.