The President should worry about getting his own house in order before he attacks the Press.

That said, from what I have read so far, I do not have a problem with the actions of the administration in this case. Immediately after an attack, the President should have some emergency powers (such as allowed under FISA) to protect the country. Also, there were indications of a warrant issued.

This leads to the question, if the Prez thought it was appropriate to get a warrant to search international bank records, than why not international/domestic phone records? He either has executive privilege (as he claims) or he doesn’t.

Good Idea. Maybe Mr. Bush should offer to testify about what he knows about the leak that Scooter Libby made. That would be a great first step.

NY Times and LA Times run this page one today.

OH, and Sears Tower threat averted...page A22.

Yup, that non-biased media...I tell ya.

The media who illegally revealed national security secrets should be tried for treason. These jihadis are at war with America. Why can't the media understand that?

Indictment: Suspects wanted to 'kill all the devils we can'

CNN.com: 'Mission to wage war'
According to the indictment, Batiste "recruited and supervised individuals in order to organize and train for a mission to wage war against the United States government, which included a plot to destroy by explosives the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois," the nation's tallest building, the document said. (Watch why the FBI director says he's scared -- 2:24)

"... the conspirators pledged an oath to al Qaeda and supported a purported mission of al Qaeda to destroy FBI buildings within the United States," it said.

The document said that Batiste wanted to "attend al Qaeda training, along with five of his soldiers, during the second week of April and further detailed his mission to wage a 'full ground war' against the United States in order to 'kill all the devils we can' ... beginning with the destruction of the Sears Tower."

Matt, unfortunately I fear we will not get serious about prosecuting the liberal traitors until their actions cause deaths.

Freedom1, the media tried for treason? We have a 1st amendment - freedom of the press. You can disagree with their decision but they didn't commit treason.

While we're at it, why was the attack on Fallujah so widely televised? And why was it announced weeks before it was even carried out? I don't need to know about military operations before they're carried out!

Freedom1, a few months ago, I found some of your posts concerning the terrorism threat rather extreme. I've changed my mind, brother; I'm with you all the way. I'm outraged over the brutal murders of our soldiers, and I'm tired of the DBM and the left pooh-poohing the threat we face, all because they hate Bush. I'm afraid we will have to be hit again before these kooks realize the threat is real...

"Freedom1, a few months ago, I found some of your posts concerning the terrorism threat rather extreme." -keefer

I totally understand. I felt the same way when I started researching Islam. The truth about Islam is ugly and appalling.

"I'm afraid we will have to be hit again before these kooks realize the threat is real..."

I hope not.

Yeah, I hope not too, but we have to be successful every time a plot is hatched, and they only have to succeed once.

Nice link to CNN; I'm surprised Larry King didn't have Jennifer Aniston on instead...:)

RE: "Indictment: Suspects wanted to 'kill all the devils we can.'"

And who do they think are the "devils" they are going to kill? Why, innocent Americans, of course.

And who has told the world, every single day, over and over, that President Bush, Americans, and America's military are terrorists, torturers, killers, invaders, imperialists, destroyers of the Koran, Hitler-like, and every hateful name anyone could imagine? Why, the liberal Democrats and the liberal media, that's who!

And who is it that blames everything on racism, quotas, 'phobia, etc? Who are today's racists who are inciting and stirring up Americans by their words and speeches? Why, the liberal Democrats, that's who!

And who is it that has forced their immoral and valueless agenda on America? Why, the liberal Democrats, that's who!

More and more people are falling victim to the liberal Democratic propaganda. It's time Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and Moderates stop giving liberal Democrats a "pass" on their words and actions. It's time we stopped allowing liberal Democrats to call themselves patriots when they release America's secret anti-terrorist surveillance programs to the world. It's time everyone helps educate and spread the word to all Americans about who is really causing the problems and threats for Americans and for our security.

It's the liberal Democrats who are the problem and inciting others to become enemies of the United States!

AAR

The NY Times proves yet again to be the definition of the term "useful idiot." Within hours of publishing the story, the same story was published on the Al Jazeera web site:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2470566-053D-4054-B4A6-841B67F1FDED.htm

Guys, do you really think the kooks like Blarney, axis, and the rest here will get serious if there is another attack? they'll just blame Bush.

Two questions AAR.

1. do you honestly beieve that during a time of war, that we are not to question the president's actions?

2. would you give up basic civil rights(free speech, free press, search w/probable cause)to aquire a temprary saftey from terrorists?

Maybe Mr. Bush should offer to testify about what he knows about the leak that Scooter Libby made.

Hey Mike, the kook from Albany, Scooter closes the bathroom door when he leaks--the President Knows nothing. You effing idiot, Scooter was indicted for perjury, not leaking.

2. would you give up basic civil rights(free speech, free press, search w/probable cause)to aquire a temprary saftey from terrorists?

I would give up my basic civil rights if this idiot would learn to write. Where'd you go to school? Inner-city? Didn't go? Smoked too much dope? Window-licker?

Teenage...how much longer before you hit your 20's?

Teenage, then I guess you also feel based on your reason #1 that it should be no problem for us to question John Murtha or any other Democrat regardless if they were a war hero or not.

Or are you going to be a hypocrite on that issue too?

Benedict Arnold...also a war hero

"I would give up my basic civil rights if this idiot would learn to write. Where'd you go to school? Inner-city? Didn't go? Smoked too much dope? Window-licker?"

jeez you red staters aren't too racially bigoted now are you?

The first ammendment is not a proof against charges of treaon> YOu aren't made immune from treason charges because you work for a newspaper. Sorry.

Just one more instance, and there are many, of bush and Cheney violating the Constitution of the United States of America, for our own good. Peace

Sydluna-
You don't have to wait too long before you read bile like that on this site. Those kinds of comments only illustrate what's really in the hearts of some of these people. Keefer's mouth is his worst enemy.

Leftorium....kettle or pot? Just got to DU or KOS and watch the "TOLERANCE" fly off the keyboard and screen.

LOL

Instead of changing the subject, I would love to hear one of you lefties defend what the NY Times did.

All over the radio this morning were "moderate" Muslims declaring over and over that this kind of hatred and violence is not in the Koran, is not representative of Islam. (Of course they all shut up when asked if they would openly denounce the terrorists, but that's another story.)

The thing is, the "moderate" Muslims like to hide behind their claims that the terrorists are not really acting in the name of true Islam. So I say, call their bluff on this.

If the "moderate" Muslims truly believe that the terrorists are not acting in the name of true Islam, then they, and no one else for that matter, should object to the terrorists being openly and repeatedly described as representing "secular Islam". (Though Israel is a Jewish state, there is no argument that most of the Jews there are secular, not religious, Jews. It's not a new concept, drawing a line between a religion and a culture.)

Remember, this would be agreeing with the "moderates" by identifying the terrorists as not really representing Islam as presented in the Koran. So it would not, theoretically, be an insult to "true Islam" by their own claims and definition.

And it would take some of the wind out of the sails of those recruiting terrorist prospects. It might be harder to bring in young men if the movement was always identified as being one of "secular Islam". It would take away the religious aspect.

I think it would be most damaging thing we could do to the PR of radical Islam. If every media outlet would separate the terrorists from the true religion by such a description, it would go further than anything else to delegitimatize what they are doing

And it would really tick them off, too, which is fun.

Now, my bet is that it would also rip away the curtain of pretense used by the so-called "moderates", who really do love seeing the infidels slaughtered, and just don't want the splashback onto Islam, knowing that it can really rebound in a very ugly manner if it reaches a tipping point. So I would bet that many of the "moderates" would object. But it would have the effect of drawing a line in the sand among Muslims, making them take a stance on one side or the other. And once millions of Muslims took a stand that those acting in the name of Islam were really acting in the name of "secular Islam" it would widen the gap between the two.

It is in the public interest that anyone who subscribes to the NY Times should immediatley cancel their subscription. I don't subscribe to that rag sheet, but that's what I would do. I don't want any of my loved ones to be killed because of those irresponsible sob's.

Warriornation-

Keefer's a big boy and he put his own foot right in his mouth. He doesn't need you to help pull it out for him. LOL

Whatever is said on KOS or DU that may get under your skin ,it certainly doesn't rise to the level of the subtle and sometimes not so subtle racism you hear on these boards.

Instead of changing the subject, I would love to hear one of you lefties defend what the NY Times did.
-----

I would too, phnxbmed!

As always, excellent post Almiranta. I think you should send that to newspaper editors and the cable news. Although CNN probably would ignore it, as they're still calling the scumballs who brutally murdered Private Tucker and Private Menchaca "insurgents". Arrrgh.

Leftorium

Would you like actual examples of racist behavior at DU and KOS...attacks against Christians, against Whites, etc. I'm happy to provide them if it requires you to admit your hypocrisy.

"Whatever is said on KOS or DU that may get under your skin ,it certainly doesn't rise to the level of the subtle and sometimes not so subtle racism you hear on these boards."

Wow talk about a disconnect with reality.

Earth to Leftorium
Earth to Leftorium

Your meds are ready.

teen,

It's one thing to question and disagree with opinions. It's quite another to do it in the manner in which liberal Democrats have and are doing it. It is quite another when people use their "free speech" rights irresponsibly to spread the type of unadulterated hate, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military propaganda that is being spread around the world by liberals and the liberal media. It is quite another to harm America's security, encourage our enemies, and release secret information to terrorists about our ongoing efforts to stop them.

You are still young and are a product of today's liberal education systems and the liberal media you support, so I don't know if you really don't see how the actions of the left wing liberals are harming this nation or just don't care. On the other hand, there are many who do fully understand the consequences of their actions and words -- and most of them just don't care. To them, regaining power is everything. To them, the means justifies the end.

If the majority of Americans had stood strong behind President Bush and our troops -- after the decision was made to remove Saddam -- much of terrorism might have been avoided. I think there was a good chance we would have been pulling some of our troops out of a more stable and secure Iraq right now. If the majority of Americans had stood strong behind President Bush, America would have been in a far better position to deal with Iran, North Korea, Syria, and other potential threats to this nation. At least Libya did get the message.

Considering the irresponsible "free speech" from liberals which is harming America's ability to deal with worldwide threats and security... Considering the irresponsible liberal "free speech" which is encouraging the very terrorists we are trying to stop and that aids their recruiting efforts... Considering the multiple times that liberals have released information to the press and to terrorists on our efforts to stop terrorists, to protect American lives, and to prevent destruction of American buildings and cities... Considering the nature of the war we are fighting today... It is becoming more and more apparent to me that if this continues, not only will I support "some temporary limits" on free speech, but Americans will likely demand it! As to what and how much I and the American people would temporarily give up, that would be open to debate. It is not a black or white issue. We give up freedoms and liberties all of the time for security.

If you are referring to NSA's [formerly secret] terrorist telephone surveillance -- that liberals and the liberal press revealed to the terrorists -- not only do I support that, I would have done that myself. It is exactly what a rational person would do who is trying to protect Americans from another 9/11.

If you are talking about the [formerly secret] tracking of money transfers by potential terrorists -- that liberals and the liberal press revealed to the terrorists -- I fully support that too. Neither of these actions is -- or rather were before the liberals revealed them to the terrorists -- any real threat to America's civil liberties. Hopefully, President Bush is doing even more... and hopefully those remain secret!

If you are talking about stopping The New York Times from releasing our nations secrets to terrorists or anyone else -- I would already have put a stop to that. People would already be in prison -- for life!

No, I do not support the "1984 Big Brother" concept. I don't support the government "protecting me" from my own decisions; e.g. seat belt laws. I would like to see many laws repealed that already restrict my freedoms and rights. The government and others already have far too much information on me and everyone else. The actions President Bush has taken to protect Americans from terrorists, however, does not equate to Big Brother -- except in the irrational propaganda of the liberal left.

If my reply is supposed to be your chance to quote Benjamin Franklin , I already know that quote: "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." (By the way, as discussed at the linked Website, there are several variations to that quote, some question as to who originally said it, and what Benjamin Franklin actually did say.)

I found a couple of other related quotes (not Benjamin Franklin's):

-- "The question is how much liberty (and of how precious a nature) is to be sacrificed for what degree (and duration) of security."

-- "The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Americans accepts the basic idea that the world has become more dangerous and unstable, and that our thinking about rights such as the right of privacy - classically described as our 'right to be left alone' -- must be reviewed in that unfortunate light."

I am fed up with the liberals constant anti-American propaganda and the harm it has and is doing. I am fed up with liberals leaking our nation's secrets. I am fed up with the liberal social and cultural engineering and the agenda liberals want to force on America. I intend to do all I can to fight back and to encourage other Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, and Moderates to do likewise!

It's time other Americans take a stand and JUST SAY NO to liberals and their agenda!

AAR

Cheney's offended?
LOL.......that's funny!
Take your own advice, Dick and "go f&^k yourself!"

Warriornation and Zootallure-

LOL LMAO!!!!
Now who is not in touch with reality?
Oh you poor poor oppressed white anglo-saxon christians. When oh when will your people be able to take your rightful place in this society? The oppression that you people suffer just tears my heart to pieces.
Look guys , John Stewart said it best. "One day christians may actually reach a level of equal power in this country. Who knows, maybe one day we'll even have a christian president,,,,,,,or 43 of them."
Wow, you have all 3 branches of government firmly in your grasp (for now) and still you complain about the discrimination and say you have "outsider"status. Sounds to us like you just have an inferiority complex.

Leftorium,

One day maybe Christians will wake up and start exercising their power!

One day maybe Christians will wake up and put an end to the liberal left and atheists forcing their immoral godless religion -- liberalism -- on America!

One day maybe Christians will wake up and take action before left wing liberals destroy all of our traditions, values, ethics, and everything that has made this nation great!

One day maybe Christians will realize that they must get fully involved in politics and stop the left wing liberal fanatics once and for all... while they still can!!!

AAR

"Instead of changing the subject, I would love to hear one of you lefties defend what the NY Times did.

Posted by: phnxbmed at June 23, 2006 08:54 PM"

This is for Kimberly as well. Instead of one "lefty" speaking up for the NYT, here are a few.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
Edward Abbey, quotes about Liberty

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin quotes (American Statesman, Scientist, Philosopher, Printer, Writer and Inventor. 1706-1790)

“I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau quotes (French philosopher and writer whose novels inspired the leaders of the French Revolution, 1712-1778)

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.”
Thomas Paine quotes (English born American Writer and political pamphleteer, whose 'Common Sense' and 'Crisis' papers were important influences on the American Revolution. 1737-1809)

“The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

AAR-

"One day maybe Christians will wake up and start exercising their power!

One day maybe Christians will wake up and put an end to the liberal left and atheists forcing their immoral godless religion -- liberalism -- on America!" -AAR

Oh please do!!! You are more than welcome. In fact I support that whole-heartedly. Why? Because everytime you guys (meaning the Religious Right) come out of your corner for a battle royal with this country, you make yourselves look like idiots and wackos. Or you scare the public at large when they see where it is you want to take them. They see right through you. In fact, I and many others don't every consider these people Christians. They are more intralled with attaining power than worshipping God. So while Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobbson and their like are sceaming to take over this country you can just keep dreaming. Everytime they and their followers show their faces on a TV screen it hurts them, not the Left. LOL

AAR-

"One day maybe Christians will wake up and start exercising their power!

One day maybe Christians will wake up and put an end to the liberal left and atheists forcing their immoral godless religion -- liberalism -- on America!" -AAR

Oh please do!!! You are more than welcome. In fact I support that whole-heartedly. Why? Because everytime you guys (meaning the Religious Right) come out of your corner for a battle royal with this country, you make yourselves look like idiots and wackos. Or you scare the public at large when they see where it is you want to take them. They see right through you. In fact, I and many others don't every consider these people Christians. They are more enthralled with attaining power than worshipping God. So while Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobbson and their like are sceaming to take over this country you can just keep dreaming. Everytime they and their followers show their faces on a TV screen it hurts them, not the Left. LOL

Leftorium, stop double posting. If you get an error, just wait. Your idiotic post will appear eventually. What part of read the error page don't you understand?

Who wants to start a pool on which year teeny-weenie will become someone's prison beyotch?

Leftorium: We asked that ONE OF YOU defend the NY Times. Top Democrats and Republicans from the Intelligence Committee asked the Times NOT to print the story. But the Times put Pulitzer Prize ahead of security of our country. They printed a top secret operation that had been working. The terrorists knew we were following their bank accounts, but they didn't know HOW. Now, thanks to the NY Times, they do. I can't imagine why anyone would defend what they did.

Keefer-
I'd gladly stop double posting if the geniuses who ran this site could finally get it together. I find that error message almost as annoying as your inane drivel. At least AAR and even Warriornation have something more to say than just juvenile posts about someone becoming a prison beyotch.
Judging from the quality of your content, I wouldn't doubt that dropping the soap wasn't a daily concern for you already.
LOL

Keefer-
I'd gladly stop double posting if the geniuses who ran this site could finally get it together. I find that error message almost as annoying as your inane drivel. At least AAR and even Warriornation have something more to say than just juvenile posts about someone becoming a prison beyotch.
Judging from the quality of your content, I wouldn't doubt that dropping the soap wasn't a daily concern for you already.
LOL

Nobody's safety trumps my freedom. You don't have to be a soilder to die for your country and what you believe in. Why are republicans so scared?

Are YOU part of the Religious Right?

Are you part of those "hated" and "fanatical" Christians (Religious Right) who the left wing liberal Democrats want to REMOVE from America and who SHOULD NOT HAVE A SAY in politics, their own government, and the laws under which we live?

If you believe in some of the following... chances are YOU ARE part of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT!!!

Religious Right: Translation...

You believe that Christmas trees and Christmas carols -- which are part of America's history and traditions -- should be allowed to remain in our schools and public places?

You believe that "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance.

You believe in traditional marriage as it has existed and been defined throughout human history.

You believe the Ten Commandments should be permitted to be allowed remain in those public parks where they have remained for 50 or 100 years or even longer.

You believe it is alright to say a voluntary prayer at a public event.

You believe it is alright for high school graduates to say a prayer or to reference their religion in graduation speeches.

You disagree with the handful of atheists and their ACLU lawyers who want all mention of God eliminated and removed from public view because "they" don't want even the single three letter word "God" to be seen or heard in public.

You believe it is alright for a public memorial to our war heroes to include a cross.

You disagree with those who have removed the Boy Scouts from public property and public funding.

Wake up people. It is YOU and YOUR TRADITIONS, VALUES, MORALS, AND LIFESTYLE that is UNDER ATTACK by the LIBERAL LEFT DEMOCRATS!!!

Learn their code. Learn to recognize when THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!

AAR

Leftorium Quote--

"Oh please do!!!"
__________________________________________________

Leftorium my friend!!, You bettered HOPE they do because IF THEY DON'T one of these days YOUR OWN flesh and blood liberal buddies there will be telling you when to GET UP and when to LIE DOWN!!

You own a cow, GREAT!! they'll have control of your cow too, they'll tell you when to milk the cow and when you CAN'T, if you get upset sir about why you can't milk the cow just go tell your next door neighbor about you gripe over why you could'nt milk the cow and YOU WILL BE SILENCED sir, and told why you could not milk your cow the cow YOU OWN sir!!

You see what I mean?

Your rights are their(liberal left communist) rights, you have NONE THEYR'E GONE, OK!!!!!

.........and this my friend is what the liberal left WANTS they want control of our right to speech AND OUR WHOLE LIVELIHOODS!!

So YES, you bettered be hoping the christians take control of the situation!!!

I just hope that christian's will WAKE UP!!!

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!

So leftorium buddy you just remember this, if you lose control to your own flesh and blood liberal party buddies there, DON'T COME CRYING TO ME, OK!!!

Jeremiah

Leftorium Quote--

"Oh please do!!!"
__________________________________________________

Leftorium my friend!!, You bettered HOPE they do because IF THEY DON'T one of these days YOUR OWN flesh and blood liberal buddies there will be telling you when to GET UP and when to LIE DOWN!!

You own a cow, GREAT!! they'll have control of your cow too, they'll tell you when to milk the cow and when you CAN'T, if you get upset sir about why you can't milk the cow just go tell your next door neighbor about you gripe over why you could'nt milk the cow and YOU WILL BE SILENCED sir, and told why you could not milk your cow the cow YOU OWN sir!!

You see what I mean?

Your rights are their(liberal left communist) rights, you have NONE THEYR'E GONE, OK!!!!!

.........and this my friend is what the liberal left WANTS they want control of our right to speech AND OUR WHOLE LIVELIHOODS!!

So YES, you bettered be hoping the christians take control of the situation!!!

I just hope that christian's will WAKE UP!!!

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!

So leftorium buddy you just remember this, if you lose control to your own flesh and blood liberal party buddies there, DON'T COME CRYING TO ME, OK!!!

Jeremiah

Leftorium: Quit dodging the real issue. Do you or the other neorads on this site agree with the NY Times running the story about the Swift program and if yes, why?

Do you believe they had that right even though they jeopardized the security of our nation?

There is nothing about this program that exudes even a whiff of illegality. The Supreme Court has squarely held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a warrant from a court, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank--or, in the case of the present program, to a whole slew of banks that participate in the complicated international wire transfers overseen by the Belgian clearinghouse known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. To get specific information about individual terror suspects, intelligence agents prepare an administrative subpoena, which is issued after extensive internal agency review. The government does not monitor a terror suspect's international wire transfers in real time; the records of his transactions are delivered weeks later. And Americans' routine financial transactions, such as ATM withdrawals or domestic banking, lie completely outside of the Swift database.

The administration strongly urged the New York Times not to expose this classified program, and for good reason. According to the Times itself, the program has proven vital in hunting down international killers. The Indonesian terrorist Hambali, who orchestrated the Bali resort bombings in 2002, was captured through the Swift program; a Brooklyn man who laundered $200,000 for al Qaeda through a Karachi bank was tracked via the program. The Wall Street Journal adds that the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were fruitfully investigated through the Swift initiative and that a facilitator of Iraqi terrorism has been apprehended because of it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/386syqsr.asp

Religious fascists are dangerous whether they are Christian-fascists or Islamo-fascists or Zionists. The religion of God is inclusive and ALL humans are in His grace. He created man and only He can take life: Thou Shall Not Kill. That means abortion,the death penalty and war. Peace

Leftorium: Quit dodging the real issue. Do you or the other neorads on this site agree with the NY Times running the story about the Swift program and if yes, why?

Do you believe they had that right even though they jeopardized the security of our nation?

There is nothing about this program that exudes even a whiff of illegality. The Supreme Court has squarely held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a warrant from a court, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank--or, in the case of the present program, to a whole slew of banks that participate in the complicated international wire transfers overseen by the Belgian clearinghouse known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. To get specific information about individual terror suspects, intelligence agents prepare an administrative subpoena, which is issued after extensive internal agency review. The government does not monitor a terror suspect's international wire transfers in real time; the records of his transactions are delivered weeks later. And Americans' routine financial transactions, such as ATM withdrawals or domestic banking, lie completely outside of the Swift database.

The administration strongly urged the New York Times not to expose this classified program, and for good reason. According to the Times itself, the program has proven vital in hunting down international killers. The Indonesian terrorist Hambali, who orchestrated the Bali resort bombings in 2002, was captured through the Swift program; a Brooklyn man who laundered $200,000 for al Qaeda through a Karachi bank was tracked via the program. The Wall Street Journal adds that the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were fruitfully investigated through the Swift initiative and that a facilitator of Iraqi terrorism has been apprehended because of it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/386syqsr.asp

"Oh please do!!! You are more than welcome. In fact I support that whole-heartedly. Why? Because everytime you guys (meaning the Religious Right) come out of your corner for a battle royal with this country, you make yourselves look like idiots and wackos. Or you scare the public at large when they see where it is you want to take them. They see right through you. In fact, I and many others don't every consider these people Christians. They are more enthralled with attaining power than worshipping God. So while Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobbson and their like are sceaming to take over this country you can just keep dreaming. Everytime they and their followers show their faces on a TV screen it hurts them, not the Left. DON'T LOL "

Mr. Left Tore e um.
oNE THING i NEEDT TO SCREAM IN YO EAR.
"Are you crazy?"
Are you from the planet red., know what I a mean.
dude.
You're right my friend.
They are going to take over the world.
And then we'll have peace, comfort and a less sadistic society that some are thinking.
Some of these people are from
Calm down, slow down, relax, take a breather.
Hug a tree.
Fly to venus. ok.
It's all right.
We be ok.
They comin fer ya.
Takin ya to mars.......
See how silly people sound when they talk this type of nonsense.
Dr. Dobson is a very respectful person and You know what the Majority of America Agrees With Him.

:) smile real purdy.

Leftorium:

The reason I "annoy" you, teeny-weenie, and the other kooks who post here is that this is a right-leaning blog, and most, not all, but most of you kooks come here for one reason--to be smartasses.

Actually, there's another reason I don't engage in serious debate with the kooks who come here--I can't stand liberals/progressives/commies/socialists.

If my banter annoys you, I suggest you either ignore it, or leave. I could care less what you think, and I'll comment on your drivel as I see fit.

Got a problem with that? I didn't think so, punk...

I believe hell will freeze over before I get a reply to my post on the NY Times from Leftorium or any other neorad.

All this attention for little ole me?! It's enough to make one blush.

Keefer- I have only one response to that wonderfully insightful post of yours. LMAO Pathetic ........Oh and one more thing, I post on KOS and DU as well as a few others, and I'll post where ever I choose. I don't need to stay over on my side and just agree with everyone like the shittoheads on the right.

Truthisright- your post makes hardly any sense and what parts were halfway intelligible were the usual far right Rush Limbaugh bs that we on the left have been subjected to for the last 20 years. It means as much now as it did when it was new and that's absolutely zero. Get a life and an education that doesn't involve talk radio. Oh and I'd double-check that Dobson thing. His numbers aren't as good as you think.

To AAR and Jeremiah- I see you two are still on your crusade to create Liberal bogymen that are out to get those poor Christian right-wingers. The Left has never and will never advocate the eradication of religion from this country. I mean come on it can’t be that bad for you guys, we open up every session of congress with a prayer. The Left does however see the separation of church and state as a founding principle and I'm not arguing that anymore with you because you don’t respect that position even though it has been clearly stated time and again, not by me but by history. The Left’s position is about the freedom to choose and yours is about the freedom from choice. The irony here is you wish to compel people to submit to your will and accept your view that we should live in a theocracy and if you don't like that then you can just accept to be disenfranchised. That's called a false choice. That level of intolerance is exactly what you accuse the Left of. I'm speaking of just you two on this one because from reading your posts that logic is pretty clear. You know something else, I'm quite sick and tired of your ridiculous little threats that the Christian right could, or more so, will rise up and take over this country...... Ok. Let me tell you something. The Left has been quite good to these religious organizations. Particularly the mega churches. You know the ones that I'm talking about? The one’s that play this little game of advocating a right wing candidate all the while making sure to be careful and not use his name. Or they'll flash a picture of a left wing politician while talking about Satan's influence in the world. While they're doing this ,they're careful to avoid risking that precious tax-exempt status they enjoy so much. But we all know who and what they're talking about. Now if it were up to me, these mega churches that play this little political game would be enjoying the financial equivalent of a trip to the proctologist. But then again I'm not as nice as those left wing politicians they seek to destroy. If Pastor XYZ wants to go around town saying GWB is the greatest man alive he's welcome to do so. It's his right. But if he wants to turn his pulpit into a political rally then it's time to start reevaluating his church's tax-exempt status. So I would say that you better hope that these liberals stay nice because one day those organizations may find themselves on the business end of an IRS audit. Keep playing with fire.

Kimberly4bush- I guess the forecast for hell is a blizzard. So I suppose from your taunts that you feel you have a slam dunk argument here. Nobody could possibly question this ,,,how dare they?
I want to start by saying I'm not commenting on this story as to this programs legality, or even whether or not GWB has the right to even implement such a program. I haven’t had the time to look into the legal arguments for this program and I don't want to comment on that until I know more. Now having said that, what you really want to know is how could the NYT print such a story. I would argue how could they not? By your own word the story on this program is hardly a revelation to the terrorists. Whether or not minor details in information collection was revealed to the terrorist by printing this story is debatable at best. I would argue not. It's quite evident that the program's effectiveness at capturing terrorists was partly responsible for the program revealing itself. Terrorists are going to know after the fact how they were found out. I would say that the only people who this program is a shock to are the American people.
The NYT like all other news organizations weighs the importance of their stories and the public's right to know vs. the damage done by the revelation. The legality of these programs is up for debate. As the NYT already said, we are in uncharted waters here. These programs that GWB has implemented call into question the fundamental ways we as Americans see ourselves and live our daily lives. The country's decision-making process on this issue needs to be exposed to the full light of day. If they are valuable and strong enough they'll pass. We, meaning the public and it's elected officials, need to make an informed decision on this issue if we want to take the country in a new direction. It's against the democratic process to let one guy make a decision in a back room and then when he gets exposed say "trust me, I'm doing what's best for you". I for one, like many in this country are made uncomfortable when the government seeks to secure more power for itself whatever their reason. It's already clear that the government has abused these programs. Religious peace activist groups, people critical of the government, those who question the right of the government to do these things have already been caught in the net that these programs have cast. So how can you say that these programs are just to catch terrorists? A power once secured by a government is almost never laid down again. These programs that you are advocating today will one day be in the hands of liberals. Are you going to be so happy about these programs when that day comes? You see sometimes we get ourselves into things in the heat of the moment and then at a later time we see what a huge mistake we made. I’m all for exposing these programs and letting us all judge and decide on them in a cool and rational way. So I for one am happy that the NYT is doing its job at keeping an informed electorate. Keep that up New York Times.

Kimberly,

It's always about you isn't it; MY post, MY point, MY facts. Sounds a bit self-centered to me.

Well, i'll respond to you if that will make your frail little ego feel better.

Engaging in an Illegal war, which was almost universally opposed by the majority of every countries population, has endangered us more than the Times printing a story.

If you want to stop the terrorists, why not cut off a parasite like Saudi Arabia? They are the ones who are teaching their kids this nonsense, they are providing much more money than the hundred thousand dollars or so we announce is laundered by small fish.

"Terrorists get funding everywhere imaginable. Some fundraisers are academics or private citizens – the Sami al-Arian case in Florida is one example – but by far the largest contributors are worldwide Muslim charities. These so-called charities are significant providers to al-Qaeda. Some of the largest and most generous are in the U.S. It was only a few years ago that the charities have been identified as the terror support groups they are. They have been legally challenged, investigated, and in some cases prosecuted, for funneling money illegally to al-Qaeda and terrorist accounts. The country behind most of the charities is Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi infiltration of American Islam has been as frighteningly quiet as it has been pervasive. Virtually every imam at an American mosque is a Wahhabi – Saudi trained, funded, and vetted – a religious leader who promotes a virulent brand of fundamentalist Islam with the ultimate aim of imposing Shari’a law upon the non-Moslem world. Even more frightening, our prison system is staffed by Moslem chaplains who are products of Saudi training. As a consequence, anti-American Islamofascist ideology is being taught to some of the most dangerous, unstable, and violent members of American society. Meanwhile, the mosques continue to beat the drums for anti-Israeli causes including fundraising for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other terror outfits"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20091

So where is our outrage at our petro-benefactor, where is the absolute disdain for all things Saudi, they haven't shut down these rivers of cash, where are the sanctions, where are the freezing of royal assets, where are they on the list of terrorist states?

Quit turning a blind eye to these guys, where are the outraged protests in Washington, to have these people clean up their cess-pool? We don't hear a peep from you supposed conservatives for the Saudi Family totally turning a blind eye to the pit of vipers they allow to grow inside their borders. We have the proof, where are the bhomings on Jedah, where are the blustering and posturing from this administration, where are they in this axis of evil?

In WWII, we had a clear idea of who we were fighting, and to what end, it was a matter of freedom, of doing what is right. This administration hasn't obviously made their case to over half of this country, because they can't see where these transgressions of commonly held privacies is leading to. Bush doesn't have to use these tactics to arrest a single honest person, but the mere fact that we are all thrown into the same boat as suspects of terrorism, with no wall between us and the peeping eyes of an invisible government entity, other than the platitudes from seedy little men, crowing, "Trust me", is a farce to the ideal of liberty and freedom.

The NYT, like every other news outlet wants a scoop, this is done for bottom-line reasons, nothing else, but their actions should, and will be protected by the first amendment. Sorry if you don't agree, but that is the trade off for living in a free society, information is power, and the government doesn't hold a monopoly on it.

You tell liberals to take off the blinders, and see the world around you, well i advise you to do the same, we could be fighting terrorism at its roots, but instead we are content with shock and awe on tertiary targets, while we coddle the real progenitor. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi? Doesn't that make you wonder why we still have the Saudis put on a pedestal of favoritism?

All this attention for little ole me?

It's "ol'," dipwad. LMAO pathetic. Another pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know how to write.

Guys, this kook ain't worth any attention--he posts at Kos and DU, so he's just another in a long line of parrot lemmings. A 13-percenter who can't think for himself. I'm sure his boyfriend tells him what to say.

Rush Limbaugh has been kicking your sorry asses for 20 years, and all you can come up with are Al Franken and Randi Roadkill. LMAO pathetic...

Keefer,

Your boyfriend Rush should slip you a few of his pain pills, so you can chill out.

Remember that you represent the polar opposite 5% of the spectrum as we do, stop taking yourself so seriously, get out, jerk-off more, stop buying into your own BS, and learn to laugh at yourself a bit more; i've been laughing at you for a while now.

"It's "ol'," dipwad."

:) LOL.

Hey keef, maybe we should start calling him "coal bucket", cause he's good at dishing out dirt!

Why, he's so mixed up he's like axis,

and everyone can see he's like a big bag of concrete all mixed up and dumped in and setLOL:)

darnit those rockhead kooks!

keefer,

I don't care what those loony liberals have to say about you, I like your posts. They are short -- unlike mine -- and to the point. After plodding through all of that liberal trash they leave strewn everywhere after their visits, I can use the humor!

We need more like Rush Limbaugh too! I wish Fox News Network would sign him up for a daily show, or at least give 5 minutes of highlights from his radio show.

AAR

Leftorium,

RE: "The Left has never and will never advocate the eradication of religion from this country."

What world are you living in? Read the daily news. Religion and Christians are constantly under attack from the immoral valueless liberal left who wants to force their godless religion -- liberalism -- on everyone else!

RE: "The Left does however see the separation of church and state as a founding principle..."

The liberal left doesn't even know what the founding fathers meant by separation of church and state. How could you. You weren't taught real history in those liberal colleges and universities. The founding fathers did not mean elimination of God from public view. It takes a liberal to make that conclusion. But, like history, how could you believe anything else. You and the rest of your liberal lefties have been brainwashed by your liberal college professors.

The only use liberals have for their brain is to receive, store, and transmit what their "handlers" tell them! Liberals are not capable of independent thought... well let's just make that thought period!

AAR

AAR-hold a mirror up man. Peace

Keefer-

"It's "ol'," dipwad. LMAO pathetic. Another pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know how to write."

LMAO!!!! LMAO!!!!! etc. etc.

Oh thank you keefer, thank you, I certainly needed that laugh!! You're priceless man. Posts like that make being on this site completely worth it!!
Let me express it like this:

Ole Miss
Grand Ole Opry
Ye Olde Pub
Olde English
good ol' time
and little ole or ol' me (either one's fine)

and then there's olé!!, which is what Rush would exclaim everytime his maid got back home with his fresh supply hillbilly heroine.

My liberal friends keep telling me that you guys have a flat sense of humor and I've got to admit they may be right.

Word of advice, turn off Mr. OxyContin for a little while and pick a book. Work on your wit cause you're definatly not working on your brain listening to that drunken fat idiot.

Oh and since you brought it up Keefer, I'm straight and I have an absolutely gorgeous wife. Judging by what you're showing us, the only woman who could put up with you would cost you 10 bucks, be tri-folded and have a staple through her stomach.

LOL

"It's "ol'," dipwad."

:) LOL.

Hey keef, maybe we should start calling him "coal bucket", cause he's good at dishing out dirt!

Why, he's so mixed up he's like axis,

and everyone can see he's like a big bag of concrete all mixed up and dumped in and setLOL:)

darnit those rockhead kooks!

Posted by: Jeremiah at June 24, 2006 05:45 PM

Jeremiah-
If that's your attempt at humor, don't quit your day job at the church. That was weak!! Maybe if you'd inserted a few yuk yuk yuks at the end of the post we may have known that was joke.
Better luck next time.

" turn off Mr. OxyContin for a little while and pick a book. Work on your wit cause you're definatly not working on your brain listening to that drunken fat idiot."

Why don't you do that Leftorium and do as your told!

That would be the best advice I could give you!

" turn off Mr. OxyContin for a little while and pick a book. Work on your wit cause you're definatly not working on your brain listening to that drunken fat idiot."

Why don't you do that Leftorium and do as your told!

That would be the best advice I could give you!

...........and that fat idiot being.....Teddy Kennedy!!

Here are a few phrases the right has created so that AAR, Jeremiah and others have a way to express themselves. You will find that these phrases have their origins in conservative talk radio and media think tanks. You will find them informative and helpful on your path toward learning contemporary conservative discourse. Please enjoy.

"immoral valueless liberal left"
( a little redundant and slightly retarded to say both immoral and valueless considering they mean the same thing yes, but if you can string together a host of negative words it only increases the negative impression you will create about a liberal.)

"force their godless religion -- liberalism -- on everyone else!"
(that's a great idea for a car game, on a long trip you can see who can find the most godless religions)

"liberal left"
(Again Redundant!! but according to Rushspeak 101- always be sure to not say one without the other. If you must then just refer to them as Libs)

"You weren't taught real history in those liberal colleges and universities"
( Make sure whenever you're denigrating someone always make sure to use the L word. Very important.)

"liberal lefties"
(Again redundant and a little ridiculous sounding this time But it follows the rule of connecting two words with the same first letter in order to make an impression on the mind of the listener)

"The only use liberals have for their brain is to receive, store, and transmit what their "handlers" tell them! Liberals are not capable of independent thought..."
(Whenever addressing liberal ideas make sure not to confront them head on. This can be quite dangerous to you on your path to Rushism. Instead denigrate the liberal in question . Make it seem as if he is an automaton. By doing this you'll avoid any questions of the ideas that Rush has imparted to you.)

"liberal trash"
(Again connect any negative word you can with the word liberal. Repetition of this will overtime have the desired effect of connecting liberalism with negativity in the minds of the public )

Here are a few phrases the right has created so that AAR, Jeremiah and others have a way to express themselves. You will find that these phrases have their origins in conservative talk radio and media think tanks. You will find them informative and helpful on your path toward learning contemporary conservative discourse. Please enjoy.

"immoral valueless liberal left"
( a little redundant and slightly retarded to say both immoral and valueless considering they mean the same thing yes, but if you can string together a host of negative words it only increases the negative impression you will create about a liberal.)

"force their godless religion -- liberalism -- on everyone else!"
(that's a great idea for a car game, on a long trip you can see who can find the most godless religions)

"liberal left"
(Again Redundant!! but according to Rushspeak 101- always be sure to not say one without the other. If you must then just refer to them as Libs)

"You weren't taught real history in those liberal colleges and universities"
( Make sure whenever you're denigrating someone always make sure to use the L word. Very important.)

"liberal lefties"
(Again redundant and a little ridiculous sounding this time But it follows the rule of connecting two words with the same first letter in order to make an impression on the mind of the listener)

"The only use liberals have for their brain is to receive, store, and transmit what their "handlers" tell them! Liberals are not capable of independent thought..."
(Whenever addressing liberal ideas make sure not to confront them head on. This can be quite dangerous to you on your path to Rushism. Instead denigrate the liberal in question . Make it seem as if he is an automaton. By doing this you'll avoid any questions of the ideas that Rush has imparted to you.)

"liberal trash"
(Again connect any negative word you can with the word liberal. Repetition of this will overtime have the desired effect of connecting liberalism with negativity in the minds of the public )

Here are a few phrases the right has created so that AAR, Jeremiah and others have a way to express themselves. You will find that these phrases have their origins in conservative talk radio and media think tanks. You will find them informative and helpful on your path toward learning contemporary conservative discourse. Please enjoy.

"immoral valueless liberal left"
( a little redundant and slightly retarded to say both immoral and valueless considering they mean the same thing yes, but if you can string together a host of negative words it only increases the negative impression you will create about a liberal.)

"force their godless religion -- liberalism -- on everyone else!"
(that's a great idea for a car game, on a long trip you can see who can find the most godless religions)

"liberal left"
(Again Redundant!! but according to Rushspeak 101- always be sure to not say one without the other. If you must then just refer to them as Libs)

"You weren't taught real history in those liberal colleges and universities"
( Make sure whenever you're denigrating someone always make sure to use the L word. Very important.)

"liberal lefties"
(Again redundant and a little ridiculous sounding this time But it follows the rule of connecting two words with the same first letter in order to make an impression on the mind of the listener)

"The only use liberals have for their brain is to receive, store, and transmit what their "handlers" tell them! Liberals are not capable of independent thought..."
(Whenever addressing liberal ideas make sure not to confront them head on. This can be quite dangerous to you on your path to Rushism. Instead denigrate the liberal in question . Make it seem as if he is an automaton. By doing this you'll avoid any questions of the ideas that Rush has imparted to you.)

"liberal trash"
(Again connect any negative word you can with the word liberal. Repetition of this will overtime have the desired effect of connecting liberalism with negativity in the minds of the public )

Leftoid!!!!!
If, I only cherry picked one little "factorium" in your prodigious posts..
the one regarding "us" spreading politics from the bloody pulpit..and we had better watch our tax-exept status...
If nothing else....you lost every bit of credibility you never had....
such a classic case of projection...delicious...

"liberal trash"

Yes, all of the above^

Jeremiah-

Great post!! So I take it you agree with me when I poke fun at the parroting that passes for conservative ideas?

I knew I'd win you over one day. ;-)

Leftorium,

Just learning and using the tactics from the liberal left. I even use those words and phrases in my daily conversations.

They must be working because at least you've heard them enough to assemble a list, even though it is a little incomplete. How could you omit... liberal Democrat (my primary and most used)? There's also LibDims and DimOcrats, but I don't want to give all of them to you now. You will have much more fun looking and searching for them in my comments -- sort of like looking for nuggets of buried treasure.

Keep your list handy for reference because I will use those words and others as often as possible. Perhaps you can forward it to that "Kettle Of S..." and mark it compliments of AAR.

I'm sure you get tired hearing and reading them over and over, right? Well, I get tired of hearing all of your liberal code words and phrases, but that doesn't stop you liberals from repeating them every time you get a chance, does it?

Redundant? Yes, intentionally so. Too repetitious? Yes, I'll agree with you on that also. Not the best English? True, you got me there too! But... those are not my concerns or purpose.

You did learn about Pavlov's dog, right? You recall how Pavlov was able to make the dogs salivate and drool just by ringing a bell using association and repetition. Yes, you must have heard of Pavlov and his experiment, because liberals use essentially the same technique all the time.

Well, I want people to learn to associate liberal and Democrat with each and all of the liberal agenda items they dislike and even hate. I don't want them to drool. I want them to get irritated and angry each time they hear or read the words liberal or Democrat... just like the tactics liberals use against Conservatives, Republicans, Christians and anyone else who does not agree with your agenda!!!

By the way, "you weren't taught real history in those liberal colleges and universities" and "force their godless religion -- liberalism -- on everyone else" are statements of fact, and "immoral valueless liberal left" isn't far off!!!

AAR

Third Eye Open,

"The Saudi infiltration of American Islam has been as frighteningly quiet as it has been pervasive. Virtually every imam at an American mosque is a Wahhabi – Saudi trained, funded, and vetted – a religious leader who promotes a virulent brand of fundamentalist Islam with the ultimate aim of imposing Shari’a law upon the non-Moslem world."-frontpagemag.com

Well, damn. You have been paying attention.

"If you want to stop the terrorists, why not cut off a parasite like Saudi Arabia? They are the ones who are teaching their kids this nonsense, they are providing much more money than the hundred thousand dollars or so we announce is laundered by small fish."-TEO

I'm game. Oil prices would skyrocket, but I still think it's necessary. (We need to develop alternative energy sources like hydrogen fuel cells, now!)

AAR,Jeremiah, keefer

Keep at 'em! We all know that if liberals ever get what they want by removing Christianity from America, they'll regret it for the rest of their lives. Why? Because some liberal dictator will come to power who think s/he knows what's good for everybody and will regiment peoples'lives. Freedom will be a thing of the past.

Great post!! So I take it you agree with me when I poke fun at the parroting that passes for conservative ideas?

I knew I'd win you over one day.
__________________________________________________

Oh, Leftorium you are BLIND my friend (

You take GOOD hay and put mold in it to poison the horse, and expect ME to eat it!

rrrrrrrrrrrrrr, wrong!

You surely can't be that dumb!

It's liberal trash because YOU wrote it!!

You are liberal trash remember?

"AAR,Jeremiah, keefer

Keep at 'em! We all know that if liberals ever get what they want by removing Christianity from America, they'll regret it for the rest of their lives. Why? Because some liberal dictator will come to power who think s/he knows what's good for everybody and will regiment peoples'lives. Freedom will be a thing of the past."
__________________________________________________

Amen!

It's scary thing to know that we have them right here in this blog!

People like Leftorium = EVIL MINDED, DANGER!!

Yes, the liberal left, they are a danger to the very foundations of this country!!

But praise God we have Jesus on our side!!

Leftorium,

RE: "I mean come on it can’t be that bad for you guys, we open up every session of congress with a prayer. The Left does however see the separation of church and state as a founding principle and I'm not arguing that anymore with you because you don’t respect that position even though it has been clearly stated time and again, not by me but by history."

Since we have already been "off topic" too much on this thread, I posted my comment under the "Open Thread: Ahh, The Weekend." (Before Mark reprimands both of us!)

AAR

AAR,

When will Leftorium EVER learn?

He has been making fun of you, and that has hurt me!! and I have been VERY tempted to get mad and light the screen up!

AAR,

When will Leftorium EVER learn?

He has been making fun of you, and that has hurt me!! and I have been VERY tempted to get mad and light the screen up!

AAR-
"You did learn about Pavlov's dog, right? You recall how Pavlov was able to make the dogs salivate and drool just by ringing a bell using association and repetition. Yes, you must have heard of Pavlov and his experiment, because liberals use essentially the same technique all the time."

I must say reading that was quite entertaining for me because I do love ironic comedy. The Left is way way way far behind the Regressive Right on that whole "Hurling the Propaganda" thing. You've got a nearly 20-year jump on us there. Hey, I like that! Got to remember that one. Certainly is true enough. How about the Ultra-Regressive Right? Hmmmmm Maybe even better. Wingnut is already taken so how's Con Christian Cabal sound? Or maybe we should start calling you the Anti-American Right? I like the sound of that to. Wait I've got it, The Anti-American/ Regressive Right. Wow this is fun! :-D
I think you've started me on something here. I'll keep working up new and better names that reveal the true nature of Cons in this country. Cons is even better because it has so many meanings for your side. Cons could be short for conservatives or cons could refer to what your side tries to do when they speak to the public on an issue or cons could refer to what republicans become after they get caught in one of their numerous scandals. We could start calling them Neo Ex Cons.
You know AAR I'm beginning to see your point here. We must reveal the true nature of what conservatives are all about and I do believe they should be correctly characterized. I can just see the dogs salivating now.
Thanks AAR (Anti-American Regressive)

"Well, damn. You have been paying attention."

Freedom1 - your Islam-related posts have been growing on me. Seriously. I was never a big fan of the religion in the first place - but for some reason, initially, your posts rubbed me the wrong way. Not so much, anymore. Dare I say I even learned something from you.

With that said ... Leftorium - please ignore Jeremiah. He is a raving Christian lunatic. I can't believe other right-wingers on this site align themselves with him. Truly frightening, some of his posts.

I don't think anyone here has ever advocated eliminating Christianity from the USA. I will be the first to admit that I have mocked some of the beliefs (the ones that are simply illogical), and perhaps that wasn't very kind. But I don't care what religion you practice, so long as you are 1) peaceful; and 2) you don't try to push your faith on people who don't believe the same thing. Not everybody believes in your god. Always remember that.

Jeremiah-

"AAR,

When will Leftorium EVER learn?

He has been making fun of you, and that has hurt me!! and I have been VERY tempted to get mad and light the screen up!

Posted by: Jeremiah at June 25, 2006 12:17 AM"

"It's liberal trash because YOU wrote it!!

You are liberal trash remember?"

Well "Liberal Trash" huh? Look if you can't come up with anything other than calling me liberal trash and deliberatly misrepresenting my views on religion and politics, I hardly feel "lighting the screen up "will do much to me. But you haven't won yet so it's still a free country and you're welcome to try.

Jeremiah-

"AAR,

When will Leftorium EVER learn?

He has been making fun of you, and that has hurt me!! and I have been VERY tempted to get mad and light the screen up!

Posted by: Jeremiah at June 25, 2006 12:17 AM"

"It's liberal trash because YOU wrote it!!

You are liberal trash remember?"

Well "Liberal Trash" huh? Look if you can't come up with anything other than calling me liberal trash and deliberatly misrepresenting my views on religion and politics, I hardly feel "lighting the screen up "will do much to me. But you haven't won yet so it's still a free country and you're welcome to try.

Leftorium,

Glad to hear you are amused; although, I haven't sorted through all of your ramblings to figure out exactly what gave you such a "high"... wait, maybe it wasn't my comments after all!

Regardless, we are and have been off topic too much, so I left a reply to one of your earlier comments about religion under the thread "Open Thread: Ahh, The Weekend."

Jeremiah,

Thanks.

I'll leave a comment for you on the "Open Thread: Ahh, The Weekend" thread too -- hopefully by tomorrow evening, but if not, by Monday evening at the latest. That way, Mark and Matt won't have to reprimand us for being "off topic" so much on this thread (and many others!).

AAR

Thanks Maf53-
I caught that Jeremiah was over in the deep end of the Christian theocrats a while ago. Regrettably his brand of fire and brimstone vitriol really does give Christianity a bad name. I try to keep in mind that he really does believe everything he says even if it does sometimes misrepresent what Jesus stands for. Yes the fact that there are those that say Amen to his ravings kind of scares me to. But what are you to do? A liberal is to conservatives like him, as a red cape is to a bull. The bull doesn't know why it's angry and charging the cape all it knows is it's been trained to.

(Maybe another servor error,double post)

Leftorium quote--
"I can just see the dogs salivating now."
__________________________________________________
Well, I've got a REAL GOOD name for the Liberal left, How about let say:

Liberal Democrat left COMMUNIST,folks!!

People like leftorium want to bring back the days of the soviet union!

Ring leaders:

Adolph Hitler.
Joseph Stalin.

merciless godless dictators!

They overruled any and all guarantee of FREEDOM!

They were the result of the deaths of over SIXTY-ONE MILLION INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Just think of that folks!!

and to add to that SIXTY-ONE MILLION there were ONE-MILLION of those deaths of children under the age of sixteen, CHILDREN, YES CHILDREN, SO SAD, HOW HORRIBLE!!

.......and from what I'm seeing here right now being quoted by LEFTORIUM it really sends an eerie feeling up my spine!!This man is dangerous!

It's the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT COMMUNIST DICTATORS LIKE LEFTORIUM that we need to really STAND UP TO!

Folks do you want to see this kind of thing happen in the united states of America?????????

PLEASE CHRISTIAN'S DON'T LET IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!

PLEEEEEEAAAAAAAAASE!!!!

This is R-E-A-L-I-T-Y it's our opportunity to do something NOW, YES NOOOOW!!!

PLEASE WAKE UP!!

GET ENERGIZED, AND LET'S PUT EM OUT OF POWER, BEFORE SOMETHING TRULY DOES HAPPEN!!!

This is another reality, Now listen carefully!!!

These are the things that will happen if THE COMMUNIST DEMOCRAT LEFT party would take control:

1. ABORTION WOULD BE MADE ABSOLUTE!
RESULTING IN BILLIONS OF BABIES BEING BRUTALLY MURDERED.

2.SODOMITES WOULD TAKE OVER THE LAND!
CHILDREN WOULD BE SUBJECT EVERYWHERE TO VIOLENCE, AND RAPE!!

3.ALL RESERVES PUT OFF DUTY!!
RESULTING IN THE IMMINENCE OF TERROR ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL, AND THOUSANDS LOSING THEIR PRECIOUS LIVES!!

4.EVERYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE OUTLAWED, AND CHRISTIANS WOULD BE PERSECUTED, AND POSSIBLY PUT INTO BONDAGE!!

5.THE WORST OF THEM ALL!!
CHURCHES AND CHURCH MEMBERS BEING MERCILESSLY STRUCK DOWN!!

SO LET'S DO SOMETHING BEFORE THE LIBERAL MURDERER'S TAKE OVER!!

THESE LIBERAL'S HAVE WENT OUT OF THEIR MINDS!!

THEY ARE STUPID,IGNORANT,WICKED, COWARDLY ANIMALISTIC FOOLS!

THEY WANT TO FEED US TO THEIR DOGS!!

THEY ARE DANGEROUS I'M TELLING YOU!!

NOW PLEASE, LET'S DO SOMETHING!!

I CAN'T SAY PLEASE ENOUGH!!

I AM VERY CONCERNED FOR AMERICA!! THE LAND I LOVE!! THE LAND MY GREAT,GREAT,GREAT GRANDDAD LOVED!!!!

AND IT WOULD BE SHAME TO LOSE IT TO THESE COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS!!!

Please excuse me if you will folks but I am upset!!

I with pleading with everyone who reads this, to please listen, to take a stand and do your best to go vote this fall and by all means ENERGIZE your family and friends and church friends and other blog members to do so as well!!

Christian's I plead with you to vote and let's bring back the unity that once stood proud in this Great land that we love!!

Lets show the liberal's we mean business!!

PLEASE AMERICA, WAKE UP!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!

I am angry but for a good cause!!

Jeremiah.

Posted by: Jeremiah at June 25, 2006 01:54 AM

And the liberals are considered crazy? Only in Bush world, I guess............................

Oh God in Heavan...............save America from your followers!

Aw shucks, TEO, and here I thought we were becoming friends.

I have never said SA was our ally and in fact, have posted similar thoughts on this blog and others. With their recent arrests (42 yesterday) and attacks on terrorists in their country, perhaps something is being said to them (behind doors) about their role in promoting terrorism and violence.

Leftorium is incorrect (IMO) in stating the NYT published the article because they wanted the public to know what was going on. Can anyone say, "Pulitzer Prize".

TEO was correct. "It was for the bottom-line, nothing else."

Yes, the NYT has the right to publish our secrets because of the freedoms our founding fathers gave them. With this being said, I do not agree they can publish secrets that may harm my country and those fighting the war on terror. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

xxxooo

Kimberly-
Look the NYT motivation is really not the issue here. The paper of record hardly needs one more Pulitzer on it's already overloaded mantle. I know it’s a favorite tactic of the right to attack the messenger rather than their message. The truth is the NYT stated facts and restrained itself in characterizing those facts. No one can refute the facts in the story so you call into the question the messenger. Even the government has stated that the program was hardly a secret to terrorist as far back as 2004. So it's been proven that this program was a known secret in our bag of tricks. Personally I think the right is more upset that the American public knows of this program rather than the terrorists given the polling that states these programs aren't popular. I'd say this indignation I'm hearing here is a case of coming election jitters. IMHO

IMHO this leak was a breach of trust!!

The NYT did not trust President George Bush, because they hate Him with a passion!..........

..and this was a slap in the face kinda deal, for someone so honest and trustworthy as Him!

ARBITRARY HUMILIATORY INDIGNITY BY SOME SORRY, DISGRACEFUL, SORRY OUTFIT TRASH, AS THE NEW YORK TIMES!!

FIRE EM ALL!!

Jeremiah

What is it about this blog that is so irresistable to the wildest-eyed of the wild-eyed (including those who brag about having three?) Lefties?

First, it's obvious that their own blogs are must be deadly boring, or they would stick to their own kind, and all revel in the mutual congratulatory praise for each other's wisdom and brilliance.

Second, it seems that they are so fragile in their positions that they have to try to convince US of their accuracy, to validate what they are saying. Obviously, if we agreed with them, we'd join in the mutual admiration society over on the Left, so obviously they are trying to convert us to their own belief system. (It is so funny to see the Left savage any belief system but their own...somehow, their own devotion to a faith-based unprovable theology is good, while others are not.)

Now I don't care how many people believe that Kerry was a hero, or that Bush went AWOL, or that free-floating anonymous recreational sex is why we're all here, or whatever else the Left comes up with. I don't care if they think punishing the productive to reward the unproductive is what government is all about. I don't care if they live permanently with their tails tucked into their heinies, scurrying away from every threat and begging the threateners to just not hurt them and they will do whatever they want. None of this bothers me. I don't barge into their little lefty love-fests and call them names or try to convert them to my way of thinking. They are who they are, they believe what they believe, and I am quite content to leave them alone to do whatever it is they do.

So why do they feel compelled to lurch on over to the Bright Side, to spew their inanities and their attacks and their misstatements and psuedo-facts? Don't they LIKE their own kind?

I think one reason they are so livid about Bush dismissing Osama with the statement that he just doesn't think about him very much is their visceral awarenes that that is pretty much how all conservatives feel about all Liberals---so they have to push in where they are not invited, if only to scream in our ears "WE ARE HERE!!! WE ARE IMPORTANT!! REALLY!!! REALLY!!!!"

teen,

You may be right. Perhaps liberals aren't crazy.

One must have a mind in the first place to be considered "out of their ever lovin' mind" -- i.e., crazy!

AAR

Almiranta,

You answered your own dumb-ass question, why preach to the choir, when we can come here, and try to educate the likes of you and your ilk. I love adding to your superficial rhetorical circle-jerks.

We care about OBL, because if you have forgotten, it was he who knocked down our buildings, when a criminal kills over 2000 people, we tend to want to get him, dead or alive, as someone once said. We don't like the idea of letting him go, so some cowboy can make indians out of some brown folks a world away, got it Maude?

If you want to be blissful in your ignorance, then that is your problem, but we aren't going to let you echo-chamber, without a grown-up to make sure you play nice, so learn to deal with it. LOL

LOL!!! Come one, TEO. You're not here to educate us ... you're here to irritate us. And, I might add, you do a damn good job.

OBL will be found and eliminated one day, and we will ALL be happy about that. For now, I prefer to imagine him scurrying from cave to cave, lugging his dialysis machine behind him.

xxxooo

Third Eye Open-

Almiranta is like many on this site, who it seems, are blindly following the doctrine the nitwitted neocons are dispensing. He’s even confused as to whom it is we are fighting in Iraq. Now are the secularists our friends or is it the fundamentalist? He's already proven he doesn't know and I think he really couldn't care. They're all terrorists to him so let's just start shootin' and let a military court sort um out!!
As you stated they are blissfully uninformed as to what's happening out there and they seemed dead set determined to remain that way. All they do know is what Bush, or Rush, or Sean, or Bill O' told um and that's good enough for them. These people are a danger to themselves and this country because they don't appreciate the fragile nature of their freedom. On a daily basis the happily trade those rights to alleviate the irrational fear instilled in them by their party. Without fear and loathing, the Republican Party has very little platform to run on. Fear and Hate. Don't believe me Regressives, listen to it from one of your own.

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, The New Yorker, 5/22/95

Now OBL still walking free is a tremendous failure for them. Rather than admit that failure they've settled for a spin, dodge, duck and weave strategy. They crow about how neutered he is, providing no evidence to support the claim, all the while ignoring the 800 lb gorilla of why did they let him get away and why haven’t they been able to seal the deal on this man's death warrant. Why? Ineptitude.

It's time for Democrats and the people of this country to put these neocons into retirement. Staying the course of failure is no longer an option.

Third Eye Open-

Almiranta is like many on this site, who it seems, are blindly following the doctrine the nitwitted neocons are dispensing. He’s even confused as to whom it is we are fighting in Iraq. Now are the secularists our friends or is it the fundamentalist? He's already proven he doesn't know and I think he really couldn't care. They're all terrorists to him so let's just start shootin' and let a military court sort um out!!
As you stated they are blissfully uninformed as to what's happening out there and they seemed dead set determined to remain that way. All they do know is what Bush, or Rush, or Sean, or Bill O' told um and that's good enough for them. These people are a danger to themselves and this country because they don't appreciate the fragile nature of their freedom. On a daily basis the happily trade those rights to alleviate the irrational fear instilled in them by their party. Without fear and loathing, the Republican Party has very little platform to run on. Fear and Hate. Don't believe me Regressives, listen to it from one of your own.

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, The New Yorker, 5/22/95

Now OBL still walking free is a tremendous failure for them. Rather than admit that failure they've settled for a spin, dodge, duck and weave strategy. They crow about how neutered he is, providing no evidence to support the claim, all the while ignoring the 800 lb gorilla of why did they let him get away and why haven’t they been able to seal the deal on this man's death warrant. Why? Ineptitude.

It's time for Democrats and the people of this country to put these neocons into retirement. Staying the course of failure is no longer an option.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, 2003

My favorite is this one:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

--Richard Perle 11/20/2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Leftorium,

"...the one issue that everyone could agree on..."

The ONE issue that everyone COULD agree on!

The ONE issue that EVERYONE DID AGREE ON!!!

That all world leaders believed ... even Saddam's supporters!

That all world intelligence agencies confirmed!

That Saddam had used more than once!

That were confirmed by the U.N. weapon's inspectors before Saddam kicked them out!

That Saddam claimed to have!

That Saddam refused to disclose what he did with them!

That Saddam refused to allow his scientists to testify about!

That was OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE -- even DEMOCRATS!!!!!

AAR

AAR-
"The ONE issue that everyone COULD agree on!

The ONE issue that EVERYONE DID AGREE ON!!"

So care to tell us once again how everyone agreed on the WMD.
Did you think we forgot about this story?

British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War
Blair Was Told of White House's Determination to Use Military Against Hussein
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke with his country's intelligence chief about seven months before the Iraq invasion. Blair was advised that the threat from Saddam Hussein might have been overstated. (Pool Photo By Adrian Dennis)

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The notes were first disclosed last week by the Sunday Times of London, triggering criticism of Blair on the eve of the May 5 British parliamentary elections that he had decided to support an invasion of Iraq well before informing the public of his views.

The notes of the Blair meeting, attended by the prime minister's senior national security team, also disclose for the first time that Britain's intelligence boss believed that Bush had decided to go to war in mid-2002, and that he believed U.S. policymakers were trying to use the limited intelligence they had to make the Iraqi leader appear to be a bigger threat than was supported by known facts.

Although critics of the Iraq war have accused Bush and his top aides of misusing what has since been shown as limited intelligence in the prewar period, Bush's critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation of that matter.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month.

The British Butler Commission, which last year reviewed that country's intelligence performance on Iraq, also studied how that material was used by the Blair government. The panel concluded that Blair's speeches and a published dossier on Iraq used language that left "the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case," according to the Butler report.

It described the July 23 meeting as coming at a "key stage" in preparation for taking action against Iraq but described it primarily as a session at which Blair favored reengagement of U.N. inspectors against a background of intelligence that Hussein would not accept them unless "the threat of military action were real."

During the July 2002 time frame, Bush was working to build support in the United States for a war against Hussein, while a U.S. base in Qatar was being expanded and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was trying to get Turkey to assist in potential military action against the Iraqi leader.

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington said he would not comment on the substance of the document.

Blair's senior advisers at the July 2002 session decided they would prepare an "ultimatum" for Iraq to permit U.N. inspectors to return, despite being told that Bush's National Security Council, then headed by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route," according to the notes. "The prime minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

Although Dearlove reported that the NSC had "no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record," the Blair team soon set in motion preparation of the public dossier on Iraq, which was published in late September 2002.

Another piece of the British memo has relevance now, as the United States battles an insurgency that some say was exacerbated by faulty planning for the post-invasion period. "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action," the notes say, without attributing that directly to Dearlove.

The "U.S. has already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," the British defense secretary reported, according to the notes. Although no final decision had been made, "he thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections."

As it finally worked out, the Bush administration's public campaign for supporting a possible invasion of Iraq began the next month, in late August, with speeches by Vice President Cheney, followed by a late October vote in Congress to grant the president authority to use force if necessary. Later in October, the British and the Americans introduced their resolution on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council and it passed in early November, shortly after the Nov. 2 elections.

AAR-
"The ONE issue that everyone COULD agree on!"

REALLY??!!!

British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War
Blair Was Told of White House's Determination to Use Military Against Hussein

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The notes were first disclosed last week by the Sunday Times of London, triggering criticism of Blair on the eve of the May 5 British parliamentary elections that he had decided to support an invasion of Iraq well before informing the public of his views.

The notes of the Blair meeting, attended by the prime minister's senior national security team, also disclose for the first time that Britain's intelligence boss believed that Bush had decided to go to war in mid-2002, and that he believed U.S. policymakers were trying to use the limited intelligence they had to make the Iraqi leader appear to be a bigger threat than was supported by known facts.

Although critics of the Iraq war have accused Bush and his top aides of misusing what has since been shown as limited intelligence in the prewar period, Bush's critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation of that matter.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month.

The British Butler Commission, which last year reviewed that country's intelligence performance on Iraq, also studied how that material was used by the Blair government. The panel concluded that Blair's speeches and a published dossier on Iraq used language that left "the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case," according to the Butler report.

It described the July 23 meeting as coming at a "key stage" in preparation for taking action against Iraq but described it primarily as a session at which Blair favored reengagement of U.N. inspectors against a background of intelligence that Hussein would not accept them unless "the threat of military action were real."

During the July 2002 time frame, Bush was working to build support in the United States for a war against Hussein, while a U.S. base in Qatar was being expanded and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was trying to get Turkey to assist in potential military action against the Iraqi leader.

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington said he would not comment on the substance of the document.

Blair's senior advisers at the July 2002 session decided they would prepare an "ultimatum" for Iraq to permit U.N. inspectors to return, despite being told that Bush's National Security Council, then headed by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route," according to the notes. "The prime minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

Although Dearlove reported that the NSC had "no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record," the Blair team soon set in motion preparation of the public dossier on Iraq, which was published in late September 2002.

Another piece of the British memo has relevance now, as the United States battles an insurgency that some say was exacerbated by faulty planning for the post-invasion period. "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action," the notes say, without attributing that directly to Dearlove.

The "U.S. has already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," the British defense secretary reported, according to the notes. Although no final decision had been made, "he thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections."

As it finally worked out, the Bush administration's public campaign for supporting a possible invasion of Iraq began the next month, in late August, with speeches by Vice President Cheney, followed by a late October vote in Congress to grant the president authority to use force if necessary. Later in October, the British and the Americans introduced their resolution on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council and it passed in early November, shortly after the Nov. 2 elections.

Leftorium,

Any your point is...?

I REPEAT. WMD was ..."The ONE issue that everyone COULD agree on! ...The ONE issue that EVERYONE DID AGREE ON!!"

The Washington Post story says that the British foreign intelligence believed "...[Saddam's] WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

What does that say?

It says that the British foreign intelligence BELIEVED that SADDAM HAD WMD!

The Washington Post story CONFIRMS what I said!

President Bush took care of Iraq, which then caused Libya to give up their nuclear weapons program!

Two down... Two to go!

Thanks for the information!!!

AAR

Leftorium,

Any your point is...?

I REPEAT. WMD was ..."The ONE issue that everyone COULD agree on! ...The ONE issue that EVERYONE DID AGREE ON!!"

The Washington Post story says that the British foreign intelligence believed "...[Saddam's] WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

What does that say?

It says that the British foreign intelligence BELIEVED that SADDAM HAD WMD!

The Washington Post story CONFIRMS what I said!

President Bush took care of Iraq, which then caused Libya to give up their nuclear weapons program!

Two down... Two to go!

Thanks for the information!!!

AAR