Open Thread


If you haven't yet voted in Matt's poll on whether the MyDD community should commission professional polling, make sure to do so. Otherwise, feel free to use this as an open thread...

Tags: Open Threads (all tags)



Is it just me or
do Bill Frist and Lee Atwater have a strong resemblance to each other?

(granted, other than looks, they don't have a lot in common. Frist is an inept Senate Majority Leader and Atwater sounds like he was even worse than Karl Rove)

by RBH 2005-12-17 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Is it just me or
I dont know if anyone has the read the article, but President Bush is now attacking the New York Times for putting national security on the line by releasing that article. Ridiculous! He has turned an ugly story about his own illegal actions and made into a "liberal NYT attacking national security, what horrible communists, there the reason we're losing this war, now Muslims will kill you..." article. Awful
by AC4508 2005-12-17 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Is it just me or
 Expect Faux news to play it up over the weekend, maybe some play elsewhere.  Seems to be propelled from the "machine".
by OldManWill 2005-12-17 07:48PM | 0 recs
Shorter Conservatarian Blogosphere

We are very concerned by the fact that people are exposing illegal acts by the government to the press.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-18 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Is it just me or
"kill the messenger." It's the bush/rove way.
by blogus 2005-12-18 11:39AM | 0 recs
Heath Ledger's...
"A Knight's Tale"... the only movie that I have ever walked out on and demanded my money back because it sucked so badly. Then, come to find out, the movie studio that made it was sued because the creators made up fictional reviews about how great it was... I could have been a part of that class-action lawsuit, but unfortunately, I'd already gotten my cash back.

Ledger must be better now.  

by NCDem 2005-12-18 02:37PM | 0 recs
Geoff Davis
Major story up on his biography!
by kydem 2005-12-18 05:25AM | 0 recs
Brokeback Mountain
A bit off topic for a political blog, but I had the privelege of seeing Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain last night and it ripped my heart out.
It is haunting me and affecting me every second.
Though the story, itself, is believable and deeply involving, it's Ang Lee and Heath Ledger that make the movie trancendental.
Ledger's performance tore me apart.  Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams were outstanding too.  They all brought these intriguing characters to life for me.
Ang Lee is the finest director of our time.  As in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, several moments of astounding emotional gravitas are directed so subtly and gently that they echo in your soul.  Lee's ability to crush your heart with a feather puts him in an entirely different league.
Don't write Brokeback Mountain off as "the gay cowboy movie."  It is about love.  And it is devastating.
by ChgoSteve 2005-12-18 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: King Kong
A bit off topic for a political blog, but I had the privelege of seeing Peter Jackson's King Kong last night and it ripped my heart out.
It is haunting me and affecting me every second.
Though the story, itself, is unbelievable and deeply involving, it's Peter Jackson and Andy Sirtis that make the movie trancendental.
Sirtis's performance tore me apart.  Jack Black and  Naomi Watts were outstanding too.  They all brought these intriguing characters to life for me.
Peter Jackson is the finest director of our time.  As in Return of the King, Fellowship of the Ring, several moments of astounding emotional gravitas are directed so subtly and gently that they echo in your soul.  Jackson's ability to crush your heart with a feather puts him in an entirely different league.
Don't write King Kong off as "the monkey movie."  It is about love.  And it is devastating.
by jrflorida 2005-12-18 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: King Kong
Cool.  That's another movie I want to see this season.  And Syriana.
Peter Jackson is incredible.  It'll be interesting to see whether he or Lee takes home the Oscar.
by ChgoSteve 2005-12-18 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: King Kong
I don't believe Jackson has a chance at an Oscar for this.  Its a great movie but it is missing some things.  Also, and it makes no real sense, but he has had his recognition for a while.  I intend on seeing BrokeBack Mt.  I hear good things.  Its just hard to think about watching another sad movie.
by jrflorida 2005-12-18 11:28AM | 0 recs
Jackson will get a nomination
and Sirtis should have gotten one for the Two Towers.
by ChgoSteve 2005-12-18 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Serenity
Serenity is coming out on DVD this week.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-19 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: King Kong
Okay okay I just had to.  I know gay cowboys sounds like a more liberal subject but Kong is at its heart about the environment.  Here is something wild, untamed, rough, terrifying, and yet beautiful.  In the name of prescious progress we try to bring it to civilization and therefore civilization to it.  It rebels and we destroy it.  The Empire State Building represents the zenith of progress at that time.  Some say it isn't beauty that killed the beast, it was greed.  Its important to note that its beauty that allowed the beast to be calmed or depending on the moment, violent without thought long enough to allow greed to kill it.  If Kong was not so entranced by beauty would he have fallen victim to civilization?  And from the perspective of this blog should something wild and dangerous be allowed to exist in the world, untouched, untamed?  I say yes.  I say its the ultimate form of civilization to allow it, to preserve and protect it even if we might profit from it in the short term (Anwar).  And while Im at it let me say this movie was great.  It was not perfect.  There are some touchy areas.  Areas of the movie that required more time to fix or required trimming to save time.  I suspect the true director's cut version will take care of all that.  Its fairly safe for kids as well.  Just hide their eyes in two scenes.  Once you see the natives attack hide their eyes for the entire fight.  Nothing is actually shown but some violence not shown is even worse.  They need not see it.  And when the slugs show themselves you might consider having them hide their eyes then too.  They won't miss anything they need to see.
by jrflorida 2005-12-18 11:26AM | 0 recs
Time person of the year...
Is the annoucement today?
by Liberal 2005-12-18 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Time person of the year...
yup it was Bono and two other dumfuks
by goplies 2005-12-18 05:12PM | 0 recs
"Harsh letter to follow"
signed "The owner's mistress".

Yes it was a real letter, and yes there was a real back story, but why I should waste my time on a person(?) who probably couldn't spell 'dumn fuck' to start with.

by Bruce Webb 2005-12-18 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: "Harsh letter to follow"
by goplies 2005-12-18 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: "Harsh letter to follow"
dumn fuck?


I'm totally lost.

by goplies 2005-12-18 06:20PM | 0 recs
I'm totally lost
"yup it was Bono and two other dumfuks"

Exactly what prompted that outbreak? A bad experience with Word? Excel ate your homework? Did you think you were adding value with that comment?

I don't expect you to understand my out of context reply. That was the point dumb fuck. And don't bother firing back. I am going to bed and won't be returning to MyDD for at least 16 hours. Flail away.

by Bruce Webb 2005-12-18 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm totally lost
I thought you realized I have political tourettes.  I blame the war in Iraq.
by goplies 2005-12-19 04:41PM | 0 recs
Or "dumb fuck" either. N/T
by Bruce Webb 2005-12-18 07:26PM | 0 recs
everyone on cnn
looks like hell tonite...political hangover I'm guessing.
by goplies 2005-12-18 05:12PM | 0 recs
Deconstructing the Chimp
Deconstructing the Chimp

The lying fascist dictator of this country fed us yet another stinking pile of shit tonight.

W: But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East.

This carries a lot of weight from a man who called our own Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" and who came before us yesterday and said that he would disregard the Fourth Amendment, and the law in general, as often as he liked.

W:I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war.

Yes, George, particularly since your reasons for undertaking the war have proven to be invalid at best, and at worst, lies of the worst and most brazen sort.

W:Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions,

Which is why you appointed an ambassador to the UN that said the best thing to do with the UN would be to blow it up.

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. United States makes the U.N. work, when it wants it to work. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it would not make a bit of difference". John Bolton declared in February 3, 1994.

And if you're so concerned with enforcing the substance of 1441, George, then where is the enforcement of 242 and 338? OK, never mind that....

Of the permanent, veto-holding members of the Security Council, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China wished the inspection period to be extended, and for no military action to go ahead without a further UN resolution. On the other hand, the USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[1][2][3] On March 10, French president Jacques Chirac declared that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.(wikipedia)

So in other words, you tout UN resolutions when they are convenient to your agenda, but when they are not, you disregard them.

W:violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism

there's that whispered link to 9/11 again. Just hint at it; the meme is alrady in place. Who wants the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud?

W:and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction.

No, you didn't believe that. You knew better. You lied, George, and any respect for you I might ever have had ends at that point.

W:After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator, we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.

But wait! You told us at one point you'd found the weapons of mass destruction!

Q But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

W:Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war.

What was the ultimatum he was given? Surrender that which did not exist? And glad am I that you see it in your purview to issue ultimatums to the rest of the world, George. God help us all if you'd been in the Oval Office during the Cold War. We would all certainly now be but a pile of smoking ash.

W:And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy.

Cool. When do we invade China?

W:Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.

You call instability and handing a victory to Iran in their conflict with Iraq an indicator that the world is better? You call distrust of a nation once respected the world over better? Got news for you, W: the rest of the world sees us as a far greater threat to peace than Iraq ever thought of being.

W:If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

What is a terrorist, George? I am to trust you to render that judgement for me? Nigga, please.

W:This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed.

Kind of like your buddies Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson are doing here, right? With assaults on reproductive choice, with your bullshit War On christmas, and let's not forget what yo daddy said:

"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- President George H.W. Bush

Then there's your bi-yotch Ann:

"[Since 9/11] I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries,
kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.
The answer is: Now more than ever!"
- Ann Coulter

W:These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

A situation that did not exist before you invaded and destablilized the region.

W:The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere -- they object to our deepest values and our way of life.

BIN LADEN: "Why didn't we attack Sweden if we 'hate' freedom?"

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example."

W:And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens -- they would be on the offense, and headed our way.

And the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud. Ban box cutters! And you still haven't defined "terrorist."

W:September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them.

Did it? Who arms Israel? Who disregards Security Council resolutions inconvenient to Zionism?

W:My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

So, in other words, ratchet up further our oppressive, wrongheaded Mideast foreign policy and create more terrorists, to galvanize the American people into accepting that theirs is an enemy that must be fought. We'll make sure the enemy is there - we'll help create it.

W:We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal -- unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

You mean like the Geneva Convention, which to you is out of date and does not apply? or prohibitions on torture? You have no room to speak of conscience or the rules of war, George.

W:Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that.

I do, and it has nothing to do with the "challenges." It has to do with the fact that your stated casus belli was a lie, and you know it.

W:We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose -- and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

What do you know, then, from your illegal interceptions of the communications of American citizens, and the downfall of a democratic America?

w:The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers.

And you will continue to have the coward's power to use white phosphorous to burn the skin from the bodies of small children.

W:And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news.

Unlike the grim results of your war on the American families of our troops, which you scrupulously hide from our eyes by banning coverage of the return of war dead to dover AFB, by refusing to attend military funerals, and by cooking the books on American casualties.

W:America, our coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal -- a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.

Define "coalition" and "democratic". And as for a 'safe haven for terrorists", you created that with your illegal and unjustified invasion of a country that posed no threat to us.

W:First, our coalition (what fucking coalition, chimpy?)will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

You wouldn't have this problem if you hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army you'd been so insistent you'd co-opted. What happened to candy and flowers?

W:Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's peoples are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January.

Did you rig their elections like you rig ours?

W:Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified.

Especially in the news stories you pay to plant in their press.

W:In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked.

That's why power and water are still at a premium to the ordinary Iraqi? That's why an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people want us gone?

W:We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission.

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." GWB,Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

W:My fellow citizens: not only can we win the war in Iraq -- we are winning the war in Iraq.

One word: Bullshit.

W:It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends -- and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." -GWB

Seems like you've already sent that signal, George.

W:We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us -- and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before.

"Would?" More like, "have" and "is."
You bastard. how dare you insult my intelligence to that extent.

W:To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow it.

WHAT "victory?" You have no definition of the word.
There is no victory - only Zuul. Your rhetorical dog does not hunt, chimpy.

W:We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people.

In other words, get ready for more death and carnage, because that's the way he wants it. Well, he gits it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

W:I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders -- not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

Translation: it's good to be king.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
--President-Elect George W. Bush, CNN News, Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET

W:And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.

Please tell Cindy Sheehan what noble cause Casey died for. She's still waiting for an answer-and so am I.

W:I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt.

Hug a Democrat-we need them. Uh-huh.

W:Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance.

It is not, and never was where Iraq is concerned. Liar. Lying, murdering war criminal.

W:I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

The fight for freedom involves shoving your Patriot Act up your ass, and removing you from office for lying us into this war, and for using the NSA to listen to my phone calls and read my emails without a warrant.

W:Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions.

EAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!! You're not protecting my nation; you are destroying it. you are an enemy of my country, and should be dealt with as such. I am NOT AFRAID OF YOU, George.

W:I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences.

I hope to any gods that may be that the American people will force you to accept the consequences of your crimes and your lies.
But I am not holding my breath.

W:And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

America's actions in Iraq are designed by you to keep the world on a perpetual war footing, because it cements the power of you and your satanic neocon cabal at home and abroad.

George W. Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward "how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" replied, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." (Woodward Shares War Secrets, CBS News, 60 Minutes, April 18, 2004).

W:Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth.

Very pretty. What Hallmark card did you steal that from?

W:And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail,

The Wrong? You mean the Left, Right?

W: with peace on Earth, good-will to men."

Talk is cheap, motherfucker.

W:Thank you, and good night.

Fuck you, and drop dead.

by kestrel 2005-12-18 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Deconstructing the Chimp
That quote of him saying it was just a piece of paper is not, from what I understand, from a reliable source.  You took that from the capitol hill blue site or the post referring to it.  Or do you know another source, preferrably named source that was there when those words were said.  It would be great/horrible if it were true but unless you have more than an unnamed source its not good to spread that around.

Where does the quote "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens.." come from? (if you know the source, if you don't thats fine)  Being an Atheist it intrigues me.  I'm serious, not trying to be critical, I am interested.

Beyond this I like your tone.  He deserves nothing less that scorn.

by jrflorida 2005-12-18 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Deconstructing the Chimp

--------------------------begin quoted material--------------------------

"Can George Bush, with impunity, state that Atheists
should not be considered either citizens or patriots?"

The History of the Issue

Madalyn O'Hair

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a law-suit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade Atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place.

Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?

Murnane: It's bullshit.

Sherman: What is bullshit?

Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.

Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.

Murnane: You're welcome

This suit, now in federal district court for over three years, is not considered to be bullshit by the federal judge before whom it is pending. During the time it has been in the federal court, Robert Sherman's son, now age nine, has been physically and psychologically brutalized in his school for refusing to pledge to a "nation under God."

After Bush's election but before his taking office, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking that he consider being sworn into office on the Constitution instead of the Bible and also asking him to retract his August 1987 statement. Bush had his White House buddy, C. Boyden Gray, counsel to the president, reply on White House stationery on February 21, 1989, stating that substantively Bush stood by his original statement.

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

American Atheists had not asked Bush to either "unnecessarily" or even "necessarily" encourage or support them. All they wanted was an apology for the insult.  Many Atheists wrote to Bush over the issue and Nelson Lund, the associate counsel to the president, found it necessary to reply on April 7, 1989, directly to the American Atheist General Headquarters, Inc.  This letter from the White House said that Mr. Gray was adhering to his statements in the February 21, 1989, letter.  On May 4, 1989, Jon Murray, the president of

American Atheists, again wrote to President Bush demanding a clarification of and an apology for his statement that Atheists "should not be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."  Bush ignored the letter, as did Gray and Lund.  Mr. Murray also asked for an appointment so that a group of representatives of American Atheists could meet with Bush.

Mr. Joseph W. Hagin 11 responded on May 25, 1989, again on White House stationery. He stated that the president "appreciated your taking the time to write and your willingness to share your thoughts" but that "due to heavy commitments on his official calendar" the president could not meet with representatives of American Atheists.  On January 9, 1990, George Bush, in signing a proclamation for the Martin Luther King holiday, had the gall to remark that "bigots" must be brought to justice. Again, American Atheists threw his words back in his face, asking what his designation of Atheists as being unworthy of citizenship was.  On February 5, 1990, Mr. Nelson Lund replied again on White House stationery--stating

"We believe that our position has been adequately explained in previous correspondence."

[next page]

by kestrel 2005-12-19 02:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Deconstructing the Chimp
jrflorida said:
That quote of him saying it was just a piece of paper is not, from what I understand, from a reliable source.  You took that from the capitol hill blue site or the post referring to it.  

So what you're saying is that Doug Thompson possibly invented this from whole cloth, or that we shouldn't cite "unnamed sources?" Seems to me that Novak got Valerie Plame's identity from an unnamed source, and we still don't know who that is yet.

by kestrel 2005-12-19 02:18AM | 0 recs
Wampum nomination
For longest comment in an open thread.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-19 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Wampum nomination
Wampum? Hmmm. What is the current rate of exchange against the dollar?


by kestrel 2005-12-19 07:31AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads