LIBERALS ARE hopping mad about the war with Iraq. Showing the nuance and complexity of thought liberals pride themselves on, they are excitedly restating all the arguments they made before the war - arguments which were soundly rejected by the American people, the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration.

Before the war, they said Saddam Hussein - their favorite world leader behind Jacques Chirac - was not a threat to America's interests in the region, was not developing weapons of mass destruction, and did not harbor terrorists. Now that we've taken the country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases, victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and colonies of terrorists, liberals are claiming the war created it all.

Thus, an op-ed piece in the New York Times recently proclaimed: "America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and turned it into one." This was written by Jessica Stern of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (Motto: "Where mediocre students pay exorbitant sums to say they went to Harvard"). You can't win with these people. The termites are swarming out into the light of day, and liberals are blaming the exterminator.

Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears like little children who don't want to listen to mother.

Yes, perhaps there are important textural differences between secular Saddam loyalists and Islamic crazies - though it's a little odd to be lectured on nuance from people who can grasp no difference whatsoever between Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Helms. But as George Bush said: You are with the terrorists or you are with America. Now we're getting a pretty clear picture of who is with the terrorists. As George Patton said, I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the bastards are and can kill them.

But liberals are indignant for every day that we haven't turned a barbaric land into Vermont. They were willing to give Stalin 36 years for the awkwardness of his revolution. We have essentially imposed a revolution on Iraq - and liberals give us a month to work out the bugs. U.S. forces in Baghdad say that Iraq is well on its way to establishing American-style representative democracy and might even be holding its first free elections in less than a year. Within three years, the Iraqi people could be recalling their first governor.

Indeed, the war is going so well that now liberals have to create absurd straw-man arguments no one ever uttered in order to accuse the Bush administration of horrible miscalculations. Amid her sneering, PMS-induced anger toward the Bush administration, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd claimed the Bush administration was "shaken" to discover "the terrible truth: Just because we got Odai and Qusai, Iraqi militants are not going to stop blowing up Westerners." I'd love to see the quote where anyone in the Bush administration - anyone in the universe - said that.

Admittedly, Republicans were not mourning the deaths of Odai and Qusai the way Democrats were, but only a moron would think that killing these two monsters would mark the end of the war on terrorism. Normandy didn't end World War II. That didn't make it a failure. MacArthur was still in Tokyo straightening out Japan in 1950 - five years after V-J Day. Not only was Japan an advanced and ethnically unified country, but U.S. forces also made things easier for MacArthur by killing several million of the most militant anti-American Japanese during World War II. Paul Bremer doesn't have this advantage in Iraq. In fact, he has the reverse situation: Saddam killed the most pro-American Iraqis before the war.

With all their pointless chitchat about Osama bin Laden, liberals of all people ought to have known the war would not be over with the deaths of Odai and Qusai. Speaking of which - where is Osama? We haven't heard much from him lately. Nor is Saddam Hussein out shaking his puny fist at the Great Satan anymore. Concerned that he might try to sneak out in disguise, U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been given pictures of Saddam Hussein in various outfits, hairstyles and even makeup schemes. (And I thought this was kind of interesting - it turns out he's a "winter.")

What is the point of liberal carping? What precisely are they proposing we do? Turn tail and abandon Iraq to the mullahs and the Syrians? Revert to the Democrats' tried-and-true method of abandoning the region to any local Pol Pot who might turn up?

Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing -- except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years, the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.

The Clinton approach was working great, if you don't count the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of our Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole and, finally, the greatest terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil on Sept. 11, 2001.

We have seen how well the Democrats' surrender approach works for 50 years. We saw it again last week. The United Nations stood shoulder to shoulder with American liberals, France, Germany and Saddam Hussein in opposing war with Iraq. And then last week in Iraq, the little darlings bombed the U.N. embassy in Baghdad. But that's Bush's fault, too. Perhaps Bush is also responsible for J-Lo and Ben Affleck's bomb of a movie. The only people whom liberals absolutely refuse to hold accountable for anything are their friends, the Islamofascists

I especially like the way she summarizes Bill Clinton's failed approach to terrorism (along with his failed approach to almost everything except putting the make on young women).

wow

liberal eyeswideshut

wow

wow

Ann X 4

puke

gag

puke

wow.

and tell her that she's missed the news since the war started

no weapons of mass destruction have been found

there are no plans to allowed the "liberated" Iraqis to govern themselves

US corporations like Halilburton, Bechtel, Chevron and Archer Daniels Midlands plan to loot the country of its resources before Iraqis are allowed to take power

Iraqis are so pleased with the occupation that they are killing US/UK troops on an almost daily basis

meanwhile, in some of the most conservative military towns in America, the families of those stationed in Iraq are beginning to demand the return of their loved ones

from the pictures, looks like Ann enjoyed that French vacation and got some good sun, but, man, she really needs to go through the news for the last couple of months before she writes again

My commentaries are never rooted in reality. I live in my own little world. I'm a conservative.

I saw Ann on Real Time a few days ago, she came off as a completely disingenous idiot mouthing the same old tired bullshit......the audience was laughing at her...



....not with her...AT her....

Ridiculous that republicans are still nit-picking about Clinton's affair (that cost 60 Million in tax dollars to investiagte) when, TO THIS DAY, "President" Bush has BLOCKED a comprehensive investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Would you like to know just ONE reason why ?? Take a look at the damage caused by the "757" that "crashed" into the outermost ring...look VERY closely. Do you see ANYTHING on the grounds of the Pentagon that resembles ANY piece of an aircraft-remember that a fully loaded 757's dimensions are: 155ft long, 124ft. wide, and a height of over 25 feet....the hole in the Pentagon is only 75ft wide ! It was also carrying more than 11,000 lbs. of fuel, and several tons of other assorted cargoes but you can't find a SINGLE piece ? ( Yet the explosions from the WTC strikes were enough to bring them crumbling, no, IMPLODING back to the Earth-that my friends, is BS also) . I don't know what hit the Pentagon on that day-but I know what DID NOT....I only wrote concerning this one fact because it's IRREFUTABLE. I cannot wait to hear what your explanation for this is...

That is only one piece of dozens that point to Government (let's use one of my buddy Bill O' Reilly's terms) "spin" on the 9/11 MURDERS. I do not write these comments because of any political party affiliations I may have, but because it's MURDER. Anyone with a brain (even you, Anne) may write me so that I may, not convince you, but show you the evidence and let you get furious by your own free will.

... is the sky in Ann Coulter's world? We lefties have vilified the acts of terrorists, whether they are Islamics from Saudi Arabia or blowhards from Texas. The White House is now being forced to admit that they invaded Iraq based on faulty information, although of course, they claim it is someone else's fault. Their story keeps changing, and now they claim that they relied on false information fed to them by Iraqi dissidents. Coulter is trying to keep up by relying on bad information from the White House.

"We lefties have vilified the acts of terrorists, whether they are Islamics from Saudi Arabia or blowhards from Texas. "

Give us a fuckin' break! The left has done nothing but BLAME the US for being attacked (even arguing that 9-11 was a conspiracy by Bush and the Jews) and AApologize for and LIONIZE the islamic barbarians who committed the acts and who continue to commit atrocities DAILY worldwide.

The left might as well be on Al Queda's payroll.

Caducad.....god you are dull dull dull......

"She once again exposes liberals for what they really are."

She'll get my attention when she starts exposing herself. The shit in her head is a disgusting turn-off, I don't mind her bod though...

......

kinda thin. don't ya think?

I like a bit of meat on my bone, and a bit of brains to know how to use it....

And criminey!

You'd want to put in ear plugs durring and shower for a least a week after.

nice to stick up for your brain damaged daughter.

...so obviously she's brain damaged."

Is that your final answer, Dot Boy?

She might need another Bush Admirer to clean her shoes with their tongue.

Go for it.

...attitude.

"You DARE disagree with me? You HAVE to either be brain damaged or a paid shill, because it is a violation of all the laws of the universe for you to look at the same data as me and come to a different conclusion!"

Get over yourself.

Some of the data she presents SMELLS foul and any knowledge of history outside of the History Channel makes this evident.

Sorry still no more peanuts.

...let's hear your objections to Ann's position.

Don't just tell me she's an idiot; convince me.

I know that's not standard imc policy, but, just for laughs, give it a shot.

This is an onerous task.

Withholding my reflex to puke I shall point out a few problems.

Referring to liberals (what ever that label applies to)

“Before the war, they said Saddam Hussein - their favorite world leader behind Jacques Chirac -

( this tripe, unsupported by any references since no one I know was supporting this CIA installed killer)

was not a threat to America's interests in the region,

(and since none of Iraq's neighbors considered him or his weapons a threat she must be talking about 'our' oil of course)

was not developing weapons of mass destruction,

( no WMD have as yet been found )

and did not harbor terrorists.

(which terrorists? Terror comes in many forms as the salting of depleted uranium or preemptive war upon mostly civilians can attest so this is supreme hypocrisy)

Now that we've taken the country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases,

(again, the poison gases, which were supposed to be RESENT and not affiliated with the poison gases we supplied to SH and no longer exist, where are they?)

victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and colonies of terrorists,

( Again where are they? Does she mean the resistance to the occupation?)

liberals are claiming the war created it all.

(And I wont even try to disassemble this unsubstantiated accusation because it makes no sense, unless you think an invading army which has come from the country that encouraged the Iran/Iraq war, supplied slant drilling equipment to Kwaite to drill into Iraqi fields under cutting needed revenue to repair from the Iran/Iraqi war and told Saddam 'we have no interest in this arab- arab conflict' when April Glaspi conferred with him about it to begin the lie of the first gulf slaughter with the babies being pulled out of incubators story by the daughter of the Kwaite ambassador caused this horror.)

Now I must take a shower and wash my hands..

Reading Ann Coulter is like swimming in a cesspool.

I appreciate your post.

"Reading Ann Coulter is like swimming in a cesspool."

Now you know how we conservatives feel reading Chomsky.

I’d love to see a two on one televised debate: Ann Coulter on one side opposed by Noam Chomsky AND Gore Vidal on the other side. She’d make chopped liver out of the herself in no time.

Can't counter anything I've typed.

Also you are unable to counter anything Chomsky has written.

Why don't you give it a go?

Trying to even treat Chomsky seriously is silly. He's shrewdly and diliberately making a fortune writing leftist drivel that panders to the likes of you sheep. He's the Rush Limbaugh of the left. Neither are to be taken serously. They are both 100% surface schtick.

None of you nimrods have been able to debunk anything (except with ad hominim) either myselself or Chomsky has written.

I could challange him but you cannot.

Yoiu read something for me. It will take time and intelligence, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

The Rich And The Super Rich

by Lundberg

Otherwise, peddel it elsewhere. You are no match for history.

to these fools. They would rather recreate slavery and continue their slaughter of millions for their own bloated and pathetic ends.

"None of you nimrods have been able to debunk anything (except with ad hominim) either myselself or Chomsky has written.

"

So what's your point? I can't "debunk" anuthing Stephen King or Tolkien has written either.

Sheep, you are easy to debunk. I'll get around to it again when I have a little spare time.

Still can't refute the many precise data tables can you?

As USUAL, your POINT OF VIEW has NOTHING to back it up with

but hot air.

Can you give even ONE example of error?

Didn't think so.

this thread is blown

temper tantrum and , so what else is new?

Bill Gates.

Did he inherit 34 billion dollars? Nope.

He made it.

Bill Gates, J D Rockefeller, Morgen, Mellon DuPont, etc now what do they all have in common?

Money, power and criminal behavior as in fraud theft violent suppression of labor and trusts, this is a term that antitrust laws grew from . Good ol boys and the government they hire.

R. the Bruce --

Those guys all accomplished something during their lives. They were/are all heavy hitters who built large enterprises, created thousands of jobs, and income for muti-thousands.

I have nothing but admiration for successful entrepreneurs like them.

And I despise losers like Ralph Nader who have achieved nothing and simply lay down in the middle of the road and make trouble for those who are trying to get something accomplished. There is nothing more disgusting than whiney little men like Ralph Nader.

I however will remain an honest citizen even if I can't call for the maid to wipe my ass.

Mr. the Bruce is one of those enlightened folks who believes that wealth equals theft, that only the government should decide who owns what, and anyone owning more than he personally has obviously stole it.

In other words, he's a socialist.

And therefore not worth listening to.

Here's a little history of the activities one of the "good guys" that BushBlower has soooo much admiration for;



The date April 20, 1914 will forever be a day of infamy for American workers. On that day, 20 innocent men, women and children were killed in the Ludlow Massacre. The coal miners in Colorado and other western states had been trying to join the UMWA for many years. They were bitterly opposed by the coal operators, led by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.

Upon striking, the miners and their families had been evicted from their company-owned houses and had set up a tent colony on public property. The massacre occurred in a carefully planned attack on the tent colony by Colorado militiamen, coal company guards, and thugs hired as private detectives and strike breakers. They shot and burned to death 20 people, including a dozen women and small children. Later investigations revealed that kerosine had intentionally been poured on the tents to set them ablaze. The miners had dug foxholes in the tents so the women and children could avoid the bullets that randomly were shot through the tent colony by company thugs. The women and children were found huddled together at the bottoms of their tents.

The Baldwin Felts Detective Agency had been brought in to suppress the Colorado miners. They brought with them an armored car mounted with a machine gun--the Death Special-- that roamed the area spraying bullets. The day of the massacre, the miners were celebrating Greek Easter. At 10:00 AM the militia ringed the camp and began firing into the tents upon a signal from the commander, Lt. Karl E. Lindenfelter. Not one of the perpetrators of the slaughter were ever punished, but scores of miners and their leaders were arrested and black-balled from the coal industry.

Colorado Fuel and Iron Company was owned by John D. Rockefeller.

So there you have it....BushBlower is an admirer of a murderer of women and children....

People who intentionally murder women and children, who do all they can to force the working man to conform to his wishes, who make promises they have no intentions of keeping. Today, we have words that describe people like that: Liberals!

You liberals are murderers from the beginning. Just like your fathers were murderers, so are you. A pox on all your houses.

So....John. D Rockefeller was a "liberal"??? Whodda thunk it? Not that he was a liberal but that BushBlower would admire a liberal

I especially liked this arcance shit ; "A pox on all your houses"

...watch out or da shrub will use that post to elevate the alert status...

..and as far as going to hell, do you have directions for this mythical location? Next door to Santa at the North Pole...or perhaps Satan is renting loft space from the Tooth Fairy?

All evil has it's roots in liberalism. There isn't a crime that has ever or will ever be committed that is not liberalism. Liberalism is evil incarnate. Murder is an act of liberalism. Theft is an act of liberalism. Rape is an act of liberalism. All evil is an act of liberalism. If someone who is otherwise conservative committs a crime, it means that person temporarily slipped into liberalism, and for that they should be punished as all liberals should be punished for perpertrating the act of liberalism. If you embrace liberalism, then you automatically place yourself in the same company as murderers, thieves, rapists and other evil doers. And since you do, you are a disgrace to the human race. Do us all a favor and kill yourself.

All evil has it's roots in lfascism and greed. There isn't a crime that has ever or will ever be committed that is not lfascism and greed. lfascism and greed is evil incarnate. Murder is an act of lfascism and greed. Theft is an act of lfascism and greed. Rape is an act of fascism and greed. All evil is an act of lfascism and greed. If someone who is otherwise liberal committs a crime, it means that person temporarily slipped into lfascism and greed, and for that they should be punished as all fascists should be punished for perpertrating the act of fascism. If you embrace fascism, then you automatically place yourself in the same company as murderers, thieves, rapists and other evil doers. And since you do, you are a disgrace to the human race. Do us all a favor and kill yourself.

Fascism and greed are also liberalism.

Fascism and greed are also evil.

Fascism and greed are also liberalism.

Fascism and greed are also evil.

Liberalism is evil.

Read 1984 by Orwell

Pay particular attention to the concept of newspeak.

--Read 1984 by Orwell

Pay particular attention to the concept of newspeak.--

It's fiction. It's not real. It's one man's opinion. It's not to be taken as fact. Don't try to integrate current events into a book of fiction. It was meant to be read by High School juniors and then disregarded. You need to move on to more mature reading. No, Dumb Chumpski is not more mature reading. Yes, Ann Coulter is.

and she smells like it too. (phew) Still peddeling your crap at discount eh?

Discount is still more than you can afford to purchase, ye who don't have two nickels to rub together..

Discount is still more than you can afford to pay, ye who don't have two nickels to rub together.

"It's fiction. It's not real. It's not to be taken as fact. Don't try to integrate current events into a book of fiction. It was meant to be read by High School juniors and then disregarded. You need to move on to more mature reading."

An adequate description of Tantrum Annie pamphlets.

Her scribbling is a Barbara Cartland novel for frustrated conservatives.

"It's fiction. It's not real. It's not to be taken as fact. Don't try to integrate current events into a book of fiction. It was meant to be read by High School juniors and then disregarded. You need to move on to more mature reading."

An adequate description of Tantrum Annie pamphlets.

Her scribbling is a Barbara Cartland novel for frustrated conservatives.

You didn't read further.

"No, Dumb Chumpski is not more mature reading. Yes, Ann Coulter is."

If you did read this and dismissed, it not surprising, you being a liberal and not having the intelligence to know better.

"frustrated conservatives"

No such animal exists. We are in control. It is the likes of you who is frustrated that you are not. If things were in your hands and as you wished them to be, you would not desire change as you do now. But seeing as they are not, you are frustrated, and are constantly saying so at this site and others like it.

You didn't read further.

"No, Dumb Chumpski is not more mature reading. Yes, Ann Coulter is."

If you did read this and dismissed, it not surprising, you being a liberal and not having the intelligence to know better.

"frustrated conservatives"

No such animal exists. We are in control. It is the likes of you who is frustrated that you are not. If things were in your hands and as you wished them to be, you would not desire change as you do now. But seeing as they are not, you are frustrated, and are constantly saying so at this site and others like it.

...it wouldn't take too long for a neocon to take the bait and bark at the posting... 6 minutes exactly.

Now who's in control ?

"you didn't read further"

I didn't need to. I did dismissed the garbage about Tantrum Annie graffiti being "mature reading" because of reasons that have been sufficiently rehashed on this site. You don't like them? Deal with it or read them again for a change.

As far as your insults about me being a liberal, thank you very much, I wear this badge with honor and pride. You also realize that I don't need or care about your approval to evaluate my smarts. Attempting to gauge somebody's intelligence using his political inclination just demonstrates your conservative bigotry...

"No such animal exists. We are in control... "

Such rabid postings prove just the contrary... you really sound like Annie! Please refrain using the "we" old trick, you don't sound any more intimidating.

"If things were in your hands and as you wished them to be, you would not desire change as you do now. "

I must have underestimated your ability to read into people thoughts. My apologies. Any other opinion you think I might have and I'm not aware of?

"But seeing as they are not, you are frustrated, and are constantly saying so at this site and others like it."

Don't confuse your wishes and reality.

You pretty much described the state of conservatives these days. Just turn on the TV to check it out. Bush economy recovery plan? Not working. Iraqi and Afghani "liberation" escapades? Hiding the hundreds of wounded who are lucky to return, now asking for an additional 60 billion. WMDs, Laden and Hussein? Still unaccounted for. Support for the war? Dropping. Casualties? Increasing. Shall I continue?

Just like some neglected women read Cartlands novels, conservatives engross themselves in the glorification of the Coulters and O'Reillys to escape from the facts and the failure of their domination dreams. Instead, they prefer to wade in reveries of self-righteousness and self-proclaimed superiority. Your posting is a typical illustration of this state of mind.

Now who's in control ?

We are.

She is bitter and acrimonious because her demon has brooded in the pit of hell for eons. Her compositions are the ravings of a lunatic with a hole where her soul once was, before she sold it to her master Shaytan.

Love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

"As far as your insults about me being a liberal, thank you very much, I wear this badge with honor and pride. You also realize that I don't need or care about your approval to evaluate my smarts. Attempting to gauge somebody's intelligence using his political inclination just demonstrates your conservative bigotry... "

"Such rabid postings prove just the contrary... you really sound like Annie! Please refrain using the "we" old trick, you don't sound any more intimidating. "

"Don't confuse your wishes and reality.

You pretty much described the state of conservatives these days. Just turn on the TV to check it out. Bush economy recovery plan? Not working. Iraqi and Afghani "liberation" escapades? Hiding the hundreds of wounded who are lucky to return, now asking for an additional 60 billion. WMDs, Laden and Hussein? Still unaccounted for. Support for the war? Dropping. Casualties? Increasing. Shall I continue?"

"Just like some neglected women read Cartlands novels, conservatives engross themselves in the glorification of the Coulters and O'Reillys to escape from the facts and the failure of their domination dreams. Instead, they prefer to wade in reveries of self-righteousness and self-proclaimed superiority. Your posting is a typical illustration of this state of mind."

It's the 4th Quarter, they're down 900-0, we've got the ball, they've got no timeouts, there's one second on the clock, and they think they can win. The term "delusional" reaches new heights with one appropriately named Ralph.

Oh well, Ralph, live and learn. That is, if I permit it.

Rantings of the delusional.

You need medical attention for your god complex.

No one cares about your little gameboy analogies. What a moron.

So, why'd you feel compelled to comment? Moron.

And your EVIDENCE for this assertion is?

The so-called "resistance" in Iraq never got off the ground to become a real movement of the people. They've had to rely on foreigners from Saudi. Since they bombed the UN and that unfortunate Shia cleric their support has fallen to just about Saddam and his inbred family.

The sabotage is a nuisance, the bombing of troops tragic but these guys are psycopaths and they're being hunted down like dogs. They pose no threat to the stability of the country.

I am canning these one; count on me to warm it up and serve it to you when your handlers won't be able to to muzzle the wounded and families of the deceased anymore.

Just like in Vietnam, the reported casualties of the first war years were one third of the real figure. Think how damaging this would be to the bush prez campaign, should the real figures made public...

The "nuisance" sabotage has efficiently prevented the restart of the Iraqi oil wells so far, forcing the US/UK to divert a lot of manpower to guard the oil infrastructure. Every GI watching an oil well is a GI less policing the streets or guarding the Northern borders where Al Quaeda is sifting thru. One may not like it, but their tactics are intelligent.

You cannot be serious. The U.S. has had major progress in Iraq ? You must have only caught the staged pulling down of Saddam's statue. We are losing troops everyday, spending more money the country DOESN'T have, losing lives everyday for a war that wasn't necessary in the first place, and the people occupying the country we're trying to liberate HATE us. Why ? Because we mistake their brooms for AK-47's and then proceed to kill half their family ? Because we walk into their homes, ransack them, and then leave with nothing ? Because there still isn't ANY form of government-and there are no concrete plans to set one up ? Because most of the country STILL doesn't have the basic social services they need ? Because we're traipsing on their most sacred holy places ? Yeah, sounds like we're kicking major ass over there.

>>Fact: Bush made the right call on Afghanistan too. The Taliban has been reduced to a few scattered remnants of resistance living in remote mountain caves. There is a solid government in Kabul now and they're making steady progress<<

REDUCED to scattered remnants in caves ? All of Northern Afghanistan is considered remote. That's where the Taliban was, you idiot. When have you ever seen the "Taliban" troops en masse anywhere ? You haven't-they were all hunkered down, pulling guerilla attacks (just like in Iraq) Solid government in Kabul...okay, but what are they doing over there besides making it easier for the US to enforce their will, since we were so nice and liberated them too. We launched a major operation over there to...find everyone associated with Bin Laden, but not the man himself. And we still keep getting these tapes from him too-I bet if you listen closely, you can hear GWB shouting "Ackshun!"

>>Have you noticed that the stock market has been in a rally mode for the past several months? Have you noticed that the leading indicators are up? Can you say, "Economic Recovery Underway?"<<

I wish that all of your Bush advocates would stop using the UNSTABLE stock market as the base for all of your economic arguments. Answer this for me: how can you POSSIBLY think the economy is getting better when: We're trying to combat terrorism all over the world, we're trying to make the skies safer for all, when we're INCREASING(?) jobs, when we're giving tax cuts (to the wealthiest Ameicans) and when we're asking the U.N. for 60 Billion dollars in help ??? Stop blaming Clinton for everything. You weren't doing that BEFORE everything started going down the diplomatic shitter, were you ?

>>With the terrorists on the run, the Taliban evicted, Saddam evicted, and The Clinton spawned recession winding down, GWB has nothing but success on his resume.<<

The terrorists on the run ? Your own "FAUX" news reports everyday that they're gearing up for another attack-TERROR LEVEL: YELLOW/ELEVATED (sensationalism at it's best) The Taliban evicted ? We just had another round of attacks on them yesterday-if they're gone, why don't we bring our boys home ?? Saddam evicted ?? Okay, where has he been evicted to ? Good thing we've managed to get EVERYONE associated with him, but not the man himself (same with Bin Laden) GWB has nothing but success on him resume ? He was a poor high school student at Phillips Andover (I went to a prep school in the same league) a so-so businessman, his daughters party more than Hip-hop stars (underaged, mind you), and half the world wishes he'd resign. Are there any other countries in the world that think like all of you republicans who worship the ground he knuckles around on ? Course not, you're smarter (dumber) than everyone.

>>He's looking like a great President Ralph. Admit it Ralph<<

Bush Admirer, whoever you are, I suggest you take off those beer goggles, wipe your eyes clean, and then take a second look.

And I won't even get into 9/11...

I'm not exactly sure, but didn't the Bush administration infiltrate Afghanistan under the pretense that America was after bin Laden?

I don't exactly see how that campaign could be labelled "a success".

And didn't the troops enter Iraq under the auspices that the militia would seize the hidden caches of chemical weapons and capture or kill one Saddam Hussein?

I don't exactly visualize that crusade as being successful either.

The stock market is slowly creeping up there though, right along with gas prices, food prices, rents, and interest rates.

Yes, the corporations are definately succeeding.

I imagine Apollyon will be calling me forth from the abyss soon.

I believe bin Laden and possibly Saddam are dead, the US upper-brass knows it, and they are using this info to their advantage. It's the perfect plan. Chop off the head, make people wonder what happened and why they haven't herd from them, or else put out your own little false info with their signature attached to draw out the enemy, and then nail them. It worked with COINTELPRO to confuse and dissimilate the idiotic, conspiracy theory, imperialistic, unbathed, domestic terroristic, sons of un-wed mothers, un-American, un-appreciative, not old enought to vote leftist wacko protesters before, so keep using it.

Looks like it might work President Bush right out of the oval office.

>>Brandon - I must say that you've really been drinking the Demcratic Party's Kool-Aid.<<

>>All of your hollow arguments are straight out of their losing playbook. You are wrong sir, wrong on all counts<<

This isn't about winning or losing, it's about right and wrong. I'm not a democrat, nor am I a republican. Don't attack my person-address the issues I spoke about ! tell me why saying that:

...I wish that all of your Bush advocates would stop using the UNSTABLE stock market as the base for all of your economic arguments. Answer this for me: how can you POSSIBLY think the economy is getting better when: We're trying to combat terrorism all over the world, we're trying to make the skies safer for all, when we're INCREASING(?) jobs, when we're giving tax cuts (to the wealthiest Ameicans) and when we're asking the U.N. for 60 Billion dollars in help ??? Stop blaming Clinton for everything. You weren't doing that BEFORE everything started going down the diplomatic shitter, were you ?...

is wrong. Instead, tell me how they are helping the economy. THAT SHIT ISN'T OUT OF A "PLAYBOOK"-look at the NEWS. Your denial is downright sickening.

DAT is DA worst plan I've ever heard of-but if what you're saying is true then...we're wasting billions of dollars, American blood, and time because we want to quell whatever is left of the "terrorist" regimes-Even though we've already captured and/or killed their leaders.....wow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.................................

How are those Bush approval ratings doing these days, Chuckles?

"DAT is DA worst plan I've ever heard of-but if what you're saying is true then...we're wasting billions of dollars, American blood, and time because we want to quell whatever is left of the "terrorist" regimes-Even though we've already captured and/or killed their leaders.....wow. "

Are they here attacking us on US soil? No. Are we drawing them into a place where we have the tactical advantage? Yes.

Yes, using their deaths to our advantage is a brilliant tactical move. You obviously have no clue as to how and operate psy-ops.

Another thing you need to ask yourself is why aren't people who believe as you do sitting on the Federal Reserve Board giving economic advise to Greenspan. There's a reason for that.

>>Are they here attacking us on US soil? No. Are we drawing them into a place where we have the tactical advantage? Yes.<<

>>Yes, using their deaths to our advantage is a brilliant tactical move. You obviously have no clue as to how and operate psy-ops.<<

So now we have the tactical advantage in Afghanistan, and in Iraq...Those places are thousands of miles away, our supply lines are stretched, and it costs FAR more to operate outside of your boundaries...have you ever heard of something called "home-court advantage" ? You're right on one thing though. I HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE how to operate psy-ops. I didn't take that in high school, but I suppose you did. You've obviously been playing way too much Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike, my friend.

"have you ever heard of something called "home-court advantage" ?"

Oh, so you want the terrorists to enter US borders and carry out their attacks on our soil. Cause that's home-court, son.

No, we're drawing them to our military, who will kill them.

"Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike"

Never heard of them.

"You're right on one thing though. I HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE"

Really!?! Who'd have guessed.

"Laugh all you like."

I do. At you and your ilk. All day.

"How are those Bush approval ratings doing these days, Chuckles?"

Good enough to win.

Go Dean! Go Kucinich! Go Nader! Go Sharpton!

damn man. this ann coulter person.

shit. shes seriously evil man. really.

Looks like the french are buying some more oil with Iraqi blood. threating to withhold and cutting back UN relief aid and the endless suffering of the iraqi people unless they get what Saddam grave them for weapons; like spolied lttle children.

Why can't you people see how corupt the UN really is!

-forcing most of thier Baghdad "international" staff to take a 2 week "paid break" in Jordan, over thier objections.

Oil giant Total has long played a dangerous game in Iran, Sudan and Burma. Now it's trying to get back into Iraq.

Total S.A., The French oil major that has been in Iraq since 1927, isn't saying much these days about how it's going to maneuver its way back in. But that doesn't mean it can't dream. Word is that it has already had informal discussions with ExxonMobil about forming a joint venture to exploit Iraq's Majnoon and Nahr bin Umar oilfields as soon as a new Iraqi government is formed. Together those two fields have the potential to pump out 1 million barrels a day of sweet, easily extracted and supremely profitable Iraqi crude. There might be 250 billion barrels under Iraq, good for $3 trillion of gross profit. Not something the world's pushiest oil company wants to leave on the table.

How galling for the globe's fourth-largest--and only French-speaking--petroleum outfit. Particularly since Total (nyse: TOT - news - people ) had negotiated a contract for Bin Umar with Saddam Hussein, and Elf Aquitaine, which Total acquired in 2000, had done the same with Majnoon. The Paris-based outfit regards Iraq as its historical turf.

But those contracts were never signed--a failed gambit in Total's cat-and-mouse game with Saddam. Russia's Lukoil pursued a different strategy, signing with Baghdad's butcher for the huge West Qurna field. (It is now trying to keep the deal alive.) So Total's stuck without a valid contract and little chance of getting back into those fields as sole operator. But what it's learned there would give any joint venture that includes it a year's head start in getting the oil out. Any takers?

"It would accept a smaller stake in a joint venture just to get its foot back in the door," says Valerie Marcel, senior research fellow specializing in the oil sector at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs. "We think they've spoken to ExxonMobil, but Total is being very careful--there's so much international scrutiny on Iraq right now that no one wants to take any unusual risks."

Total has good reason to walk on tiptoe these days. It's only four years since it swelled up via a merger with Belgium's Petrofina and, a year later, a bruising takeover of France's larger Elf Aquitaine. Last year it earned $6.6 billion on revenue of $108 billion. Its $116 billion market cap makes it the biggest company in France.

In acquiring Elf, Total also inherited a Pandora's box of past corruption; it has found it difficult to close the lid. Former Elf Aquitaine chairman Loik Le Floch-Prigent is on trial, charged with presiding over what the French papers called "System Elf"--a money machine that siphoned off $300 million in the 1980s and 1990s. The cash went into the pockets of executives and, allegedly, to President François Mitterrand's Socialist party and into lavish gifts for the rotten West African governments that gave Elf most of its oil.

Among the nuggets that came out at the trial: Mitterrand happened to mention to Le Floch-Prigent in 1991 that his golf buddy, Dr. Laurent Raillard, wanted to sell his country villa outside Paris. Elf bought the villa for 20 million francs, plus another 6 million under the table. Raillard ended up living there rent free. Since the merger, Total has reportedly been making good on various unpaid debts incurred by Elf, no questions asked, to make them go away. It was partly against this backdrop of horrendous publicity that Total commissioned an audit of its corporate citizenship, released in May. "Our change in size has increased the expectations of civil society," says Total Chairman Thierry Desmarest. "But if you are averse to risk, you should probably find another job."



Desmarest clearly isn't. He has plotted a course for Total that often steers it where the mix of hydrocarbons and human misery gets stickiest. He rose through the rowdy ranks of exploration and production, where he demonstrated both a sharp nose for new oil and a robust appetite for risk. He took over as chairman in 1995 at age 49. Before that, he had already done much to kill the old joke that CFP (the initials of Total's forebear, Compagnie Française des Pétroles) stood for "Can't Find Petroleum."

In West Siberia the young Desmarest negotiated a production-sharing agreement for the Kharyaga field before Russia had any legislation, leaving Total unprotected. "Desmarest sees an opportunity before anyone else--that was a very gutsy move," says Florence Fee, who once ran Mobil's exploration and production in Russia and now heads her own oil consultancy.

Desmarest has committed Total to an audacious program of oil discovery--and has so far delivered. Total increased production of oil and natural gas 10% to the equivalent of 2.4 million barrels a day in 2002 while the four larger petroleum companies were either down, flat or (in the case of BP) up 3%. Production is likely to rise 5% annually over the next six years, says Desmarest. Total channels 67% of its capital into upstream development--compared with an industry average of 60% or so--an estimated $6.8 billion this year.

To keep getting those impressive results, Total deals with many incarnations of the Devil. Its E&P people spend a lot of time in places like Iran and Burma, where oil and gas are still plentiful. As a Total executive told a consultant in one of its more troublesome spots recently, "God, in His infinite irony, took most of the world's oil and put it into the hands of criminals."

And Total has never met a hand it was unwilling to shake. In Burma it laid the pipeline that connects its Yadana gas field in the Andaman Sea to a terminus in Thailand, which buys most of the 175 billion cubic feet that flow through it yearly. The pipeline generates an estimated $400 million a year in revenue for one of the ugliest governments around; the junta's take helps keep it afloat. Total has defended itself against accusations that the pipeline was built with forced labor that included women and children since that work began in 1995. There are charges, too, of displaced villages along the pipeline route, and lawsuits against Total on behalf of Burmese complainants are pending in France.

Desmarest's rebuttal: "Every company has its hot spot: Shell has Nigeria; Exxon has Indonesia; for us, it's Burma." As far as slave labor goes, he will only say, "Just imagine women carrying huge sections of pipe that weigh in the tons." Even one of Total's own consultants finds its various defenses tough to swallow: "Time and time again, they're caught with a smoking gun, and they say, ‘Just because it's a gun and it's smoking doesn't mean we just shot it.'"

Total drew Uncle Sam's ire when it signed a deal to operate the $2.2 billion South Pars gas field in Iran. This was in September 1997, a year after the U.S. passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, placing Iran off limits to American investment. Around the same time, Total began selling its network of a few hundred gas stations in the U.S., leaving it with virtually no business interests here. "Can we accept that one country tells you what is good and what is not good?" asks Christophe de Margerie, Total's president of exploration and production. Total cranked up its lobbyists at the law firm of Patton Boggs and got a waiver on the act as part of a package of trade considerations, including, importantly, bananas. Which doesn't mean the U.S. has forgiven and forgotten. "Total really blotted its copybook with the U.S. government over South Pars," says Florence Fee.

Total has been holding concessions to Block B for around 20 years in the disputed south of Sudan. The last thing it wants is to start pumping the waxy, sulfurous oil right where Sudanese are massacring Sudanese. So Total and the Khartoum government play a little game: Every year Sudan's oil ministry tries to compel Total to begin extraction under its contract; every year Total invokes force majeure, pays some $50,000 to renew the license for its concessions and does nothing. ChevronTexaco (nyse: CVX - news - people ) abandoned Sudan in 1984 without a drop of oil to show for its $1.5 billion investment. Total hangs in, hoping the winds of change will one day blow the country's unsavory image away. There's up to 5 billion barrels under the bloody Sudanese soil, including Block B. "I'm not sure we'll ever get any oil out of there," sighs Desmarest.

Total and its acquiree played a similar game of rope-a-dope with Iraq, and for much higher stakes. It's no secret why Saddam picked two French companies to get these prizes, and Russia's Lukoil for the huge West Qurna field. "[The Iraqis] tried to sign contracts with members of the U.N. Security Council that would support lifting the embargo," says Total's Christophe de Margerie. For their political support, French companies were rewarded with contracts to sell $3.5 billion worth of goods to Baghdad under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, making it Iraq's largest Western trading partner from 1996 to 2001. Then a change in policy--"smart" sanctions keeping a tighter rein on funds to Iraq--earned France a commercial slap on the wrist from Saddam that dropped it from its high perch.

Still, while Desmarest determined never to breach the embargo, he didn't mind skating close to the line. Total was negotiating during a period when Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, was serving as minister of oil, before he defected, was lured back to Iraq and killed. But it was always clear who really ran the negotiations. "All the main decisions were taken above the ministerial level," says Alain Lechevalier, Total's senior vice president in the Middle East. "The guys we were negotiating with had no authority."

Total's own lawyers counseled against dealing with the shadowy presence De Margerie calls "the invisible man," but Desmarest overruled them. "We did it anyway, and we are not in jail," says De Margerie. But when the Iraqis pushed for a signature, Total balked, saying it would sign only if there were a clause stipulating that work would begin when sanctions law permitted. "Iraq was trying to induce us to break the sanctions," says De Margerie. "Even our government said that if we signed, we would be on the other side of a red line."

Now Desmarest finds himself with no contract, but he's still got a few cards left to play. For one thing, Total has long relationships with Iraq's oilmen, many of whom it trained during its years there. This may not count for much under U.S. interim authority, but ultimately those same Iraqi technocrats are likely to run the country's oil industry again. Total can be patient--just look at Sudan.

Meanwhile, says Desmarest, no one is starting work on Iraq's new oilfields before there's a stable government that can sign contracts. Reason: Each field will require an investment of $3 billion to $4 billion and up to five years before any oil starts flowing. Total will be happy to take a smaller piece of these huge fields down the road, if that's the best deal it can get.

A willingness to accept half a baguette sets Total apart from its Anglo-Saxon rivals, says Desmarest. "We adapt better to these countries than perhaps an American company would. We're more flexible on contract terms, as long as there's a fair return."

As in its $2.2 billion investment, shared with two partners, for a 40% stake in Iran's massive South Pars offshore gas project, which it operates as of now. The deal transforms Total from an equity partner into a contractor, giving it 80,000 barrels a day of condensate for expenses and a return reportedly near 20%. Total relinquished control of the field to the National Iranian Oil Co. earlier this year. In the process it set up a program to train 650 students. Of the program's 420 graduates, 350 are working today in South Pars. This can't hurt Total, as it eyes Iran's vast reserves of oil and gas.

Any new deal in Iraq is likely to resemble South Pars because no future Iraqi government can afford to be seen giving up rights to anything that lies under its liberated sand. "I tell my people, ‘Stop crying about Iraq,'" says exploration chief Christophe de Margerie. "Before we couldn't sign any deal. Now we can."

Total doesn't need Iraqi production to meet its current targets. More important to Total's immediate future is the mammoth Kashagan field in Kazakhstan, with proven reserves of 13 billion barrels of oil. Total holds a 20.3% interest in Kashagan, but it wants to be operator, as do its partners ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell. The current player in that position is Italy's Eni--not nearly in the same weight class as its partners, who are all waiting for it to fail. Can Desmarest outmaneuver his partners to take over as operator? And if so, can he get the oil out through the politically embattled Caspian pipeline by the production date of 2005? "Dicey days ahead," says Florence Fee. "But if anybody can do it, Desmarest can."

but I wonder who really writes her drivel...

Ann Coulter? Who?







Oh yeah, she's the one who got fired for her overt racism. Now I remember.

I would do her, at least twice. I also see she is a smart cookie, I like her views.

I'm hot for you too baby.

?

Please do it to me oh you hot boy!

Ann Coulter couldn't nail anything, and probably has problems with her press ons. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. The American people have been lied to repeatedly by the Bush Pretendership about reasons for the war. For awhile it seemed like every other day came a new rationale, because the American people weren't buying it. Bush only went to the UN for help, because the public said it wouldn't support his adventurism without international support. Bush himself undercut that international support by saying if you don't agree with me on everything, than the UN is meaningless. Donald Rumsefield was going around talking about Old Europe, the one we so need now. When the UN refused to back what was an unprovoked war, than the Bush pretendership made the tenuous connection between Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, which has turned out to be a lie. Because of that lie, the American people then supported the war.

When Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people the worst offenses were under the Bush administration of 1988-1992. Why was it not worth mentioning until she could blame Clinton, who came after the fact. The fact that Clinton wanted to go along with International law, does not make him a weakling. He knew he needed support for any activity against Al-Queda, who we were just then learning of their danger. Whenever he tried to speak of the dangers out there, the self-important, new Republican Congress would dismiss the comments as being attempts to make us forget about important stuff like Monica's stained dress. On leaving the Whitehouse , Clinton's people tried to warn the newcomers about what was going on, and how to continue fighting it. But the newcomers were het up about renewing a war on crime. 9-11 partially happened because it was of the Bush radar screen. They wanted to renew a new SDI system, and even unilaterally pulled American out of the ABM treaty. They were looking for rogue nations to attack us in the traditional cold war scenario. People tried to warn them that if we were attacked, it would probably be terrorists with smaller arms, back-pack, or brief case sized nuclear arms or dirty bombs, but they refused to listen, even after an attempted high-jacking and crash attempt in Paris. Now despite their failures, they claim that all who disagree with them are traitors, or "uncivil," and shills like Coulter carry the ball for them. Fortunately, I think this neo-fascist conservative period is soon coming to an end.

I challenge you to prove this.

Keep on trying. You got another think coming.

Lumpy wrote "I challenge you to prove this."

OK.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml



There, done.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/3977402.htm

Oh! Did it again.

http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2001/000133.html

Whoa, dude! Overkill! Bit of raspberry jam, that!

The National Review said they "severed their relationship". That doesn't mean she was fired. Words mean things.

The other two articles are left-wing fluff pieces (well, what left-wing article ISN'T a fluff piece?).

You keep grabbing at straws and you're going to pull them right out of the ground. By the way, have you considered a career as a lawyer?

PS. She was "axed". She "got the can". She was "made redundant". She was "downsized". She was "restructured". She "had to move on to the next stage".

It really hurt her career, didn't it. She's had one best seller after the next, and all you can do is sit there and triumphantly exclaim "BBBUTT BUT SHE WAS FFFFIRRED!"

Like anyone seems to care.

HAR!

My raising the fact that she got the axe should have made people look at why. Well, why? Because she said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. "

buh

From your own source:

"http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml&quot;

"Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."



Ann fired the National Review. Don't you get it? You are obviously an insipid dunce. You provided the source, and I shot you down with you own source.

For Christ's sake, why don't you learn to read/comprehend?

You leftists love to obfuscate the truth. No wonder America is getting sick of your type.

Shoo!! Away with you!

Oh, got me. I admit I didn't read beyond the word "explanation" in the first paragraph - just lazy. I was too eager to "get" Coulter for her unforgivable comments and I made a mistake. I care enough to post, but not enough to read closely. This issue is just not that close to me. At any rate, you've really won my heart and mind with your "insipid dunce" comment. I'm sure to register Republican any time soon.

I cared enough to post, but not enough to read closely.

PS. I didn't shoo.

Please do NOT register as a Republican. We don't take vapid idiots.

Just intellectual giants like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Trent Lott, Strom Thurman, etc.

For what it's worth, I do thank you for the correction, though.

Don't mention it.

At least you're humble enough to admit when you're wrong, unlike most leftists.

Perhaps there's still hope for you.

If one can see through just a single solitary islolated instance of the many, many leftist lies, perpetrated agitprop, or blather, typically he can find his way back to the land of the living.

That's usually all it takes for someone to embrace the Gospel of conservatism.

Good luck in your journey.

If I did subscribe to conservativism (and certainly there are merits to true conservitivism) I would definitely be what is called a "Red Tory." However, I do not call myself such as I find myself to be more truly conservative - by their "Red Tory" definition than they are in reality. My primary obligation is always to the truth (hence the thanks). No doubt, you will claim truth to be the exclusive province of the right, but I find this to be far from accurate.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

We have Red Tories in the USA too. We call them "Libertarians", "Greens", "America Firsters" and just about any of the alternative third parties. Take your pick.

This crap about "progressive conservatism" is just that. CRAP.

It's like mixing ice cream and ketchup. You certainly can do it, but it's nasty and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

That's a whole world apart from my philosophy. I wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit my on my vaseline lubricated ass.

Why won't I go away? I'm such a loser.

right, as always.

wonder why Clinton and the clinton-ites haven't been prosecuted for high crimes and misdemeanors (bribery

comes to mind)???

I am disgusted by conservatives for their narrow mindedness and stubbornness, selfishness, and heartlessness. I am disgusted by liberals for being so damn negative and angry all the time.

Here's an idea... separate wealth from politics... then maybe people with good ideas for the country who are actually qualified to be president can move into the White House <---- oh wait, that's too democratic isn't it? i forget, americans don't like democracy, it's just the word that sounds so comforting to us while we sit back and let the good ol boys in the republican party make all the informed decisions for us. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Bubba Bush III<---- how is this NOT a monarchy system?

"George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Bubba Bush III<---- how is this NOT a monarchy system?"

Are you actually asking that?

Do you think that you've uncovered some nefarious pattern which points to monarchism since 5 (HW Bush is utterly irrelevant by the way) recent politicians are related, coming from 2 seperate families?

You're not really, are you?

No, Fresca. I'm not really asking that. It's what I like to call exaggerated rhetorical questioning.

There is no movement towards a monarchy in this country. I always like to be satirical hoping that people will wake up and see that family connections, wealth, and family power need to be removed from the political process.

It's very idealistic, I know, and I should probably just stick to more immediate, matter-of-fact matters at hand.

One question though... Why does everyone on this message board just assume that George W Bush is going to get re-elected, by throwing out possible 2008 democratic candidates?

Humptee, you did, of course, catch the fallacies you made in your last post...