Home | Bio | Contact |

American Hostage, Eugene Armstrong, Beheaded By Terrorists [Update]

Bookmark and Share

These people are vicious and we need to use the same viciousness with taking them on. None of this "We might come and get you soon" bullshit. We need solid action, this is ridiculous. Have we become that wimpy that we will not deal with animals with extreme prejudice and just continue to implement sanctions or talk a lot?

I'm looking your way North Korea, Syria and Iran because I know you people are just as vicious and evil as these assholes that are chopping peoples heads off.

Go ahead you pansy asses, elect John Kerry. Let him talk to these people and explain to them peace. Let him pull troops out and not confront terror. Let him leave things to the pussified UN. And after he's done all those things, let him explain to the American people why we are finding beheaded people in the middle of America.

Reuters is reporting that one of the two American hostages has been killed. The terrorists also threaten to kill the other American and Briton.

An American hostage in Iraq has been killed by his captors, who say they will also kill a second American and a Briton they are holding, a message on an Islamist Web site said Monday.

The message, which could not immediately be verified, said the American was killed by the militant group of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an ally of the al Qaeda network.

The claim was the first word on the three men, kidnapped by militants in Baghdad Thursday and threatened with death, since a deadline set by the group expired earlier in the day.


The message said the group would soon post pictures of the "slaughter" of the three hostages, but gave no further details.


Tawhid and Jihad said in footage posted on the Internet on Saturday it would slit the throats of the two Americans and the Briton unless Iraqi women were freed from Abu Ghraib and Umm Qasr jails in 48 hours.

Fox News just reported the video is now on the web.

Hat Tip: Right On Red

Others commenting:
My Pet Jawa

My Pet Jawa has the pics and video and informs me that the victim is Eugene Armstrong and the pics are grotesque.

More Commentary: (links open in new window)
Armies of Liberation
Ramblings' Journal has more comments and info on the other American hostage
The Command Post
Slant Point
Blogs Of War
In The Bullpen
Outside The Beltway
Sparse Matrix
SoCal Law Blog
Interested Participant

Update 2:
A second of the three hostages has been beheaded
American Hostage, Jack Hensley, Beheaded By Terrorists

This entry is in the following archive(s):

Next and Previous Entries:

Posted by Digger on September 20, 2004 12:29 PM (Permalink)

» Armies of Liberation linked with American Hostage Jack Hensley Murdered
» Six Meat Buffet linked with Another beheading
» In Search of Utopia linked with Eugene Armstrong RIP
» Backcountry Conservative linked with American Hostage Beheaded on Video
» Rooftop Report linked with American Eugene Armstrong beheaded by terrorists in Iraq - - Video
» Blogs of War linked with Video Shows Beheading of American Hostage Eugene Armstrong
» Armies of Liberation linked with American Hostage Beheaded
» InTheBullpen.com linked with Armstrong Beheaded
» mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) linked with American Hostage Eugene Armstrong Beheaded on Video
» Ramblings' Journal linked with American Eugene Armstrong beheaded by terrorists in Iraq

The Realm Daily Digest
Have Diggers Realm articles emailed to you daily!

Powered by FeedBlitz
See a sample of what a daily email looks like!


Watched the video, and it was indeed hideous. The poor fellow was obviously drugged, and when the five thugs finlly jumped him I only continued to watch to see if it was genuine. My heartfelt condolences to his friends and family.

Gunny Bob

Posted by: Bob on September 20, 2004 09:47 PM

I have to say that I am beyond disgusted, beyond appalled, beyond nauseated, beyond any feeling or emotion I could ever express.......I am completely at a loss for this poor man, his family and friends, and for our President that has to make such peril decisions. I commend Bush for sticking with this thing and not giving in......I just wish someone would bomb these fuckers.........nuke them or something, they are just having a hell of a time with these sick videos and "religious" romps......do they actually think people would want convert and follow a god, Allah, that would find favor in innocent beheadings? Now thats a twisted, sick religion.....fuck Allah, fuck these towel heads.......nuke the cave dwellers!
PS.....if you aren't an armed military employee...stay or get the fuck out of IRAQ!!!

Posted by: knowgoal on September 20, 2004 09:55 PM

Bush is an idiot and anyone who votes for him will be asking for more of these terrible videos. I think we should get the fuck out of dodge and let them have their civil war then bomb the fuck out of the winners. Bush won't do that and Kerry won't do that. The Bushies will keep this thing going as long as possible because it is making them megabucks, they don't give a shit about the soldiers over there. We need to get out and let them have at eachother! The whole Middle east isn't worth one drop of American blood. Fucking cowardly, raghead bastards!

Posted by: Rob on September 20, 2004 11:02 PM

I watched the video and am very enraged at the fact that these bastards could get away with this. we should hunt these coward pieces of shit and kill them and there mothers and fathers so that there will not be any more like them!!!!
vote bush LETS ROLL!!!!

Posted by: kevin on September 20, 2004 11:53 PM

I dont know what to say. My heart goes out to this poor man. This is absoloutely no way to proove thier point. The Religion Islam does not support this kind of acts. These terrorists people are doing this by themselves, by their will and use Religion as an excuse.By killing someone will not make anything better but worse. How manipulative. In my oppinoin America should not vote for Bush. Its because of him there is a War in Iraq and no one supported it accept bush himself and his team. If everyone really does genuinely care about their loved ones they should vote against Bush and move the troops out of Iraq .We have a chance to probably end this if everyone votes for Jhon Kerry. Ever since Bill Clinton was president there were no problems. Bill Clinton is the Best president out of all. These troops are humans at the end of the day making money to support their families, these troops are going out their because its their job, they may get good money but is it really worth getting killed?
Most of these people are not here because they want to be.These are Bush's orders.Why should people have to die just so they make money. everyone Vote for Jhon Kerry so this can end....

Posted by: Aisha on September 21, 2004 03:16 AM

Tactical nukes and start over.

Posted by: warrior on September 21, 2004 05:39 AM

I am so sick and tired of hearing the excuse that "Islam does not support these kinds of acts". They sure aren’t helping us catch the bloody terrorists. It's in their doctrine to kill infidels...US. If our President really deal with these terrorist the way he really wants....You'll hear the world/muslim outcry that the US bullies or that Bush is arrogant. Or you’ll see the Human rights blaming the US for atrocities. The muslim people are ungrateful by not outwardly supporting the end of terrorism (they know they are protected, so why should they care for infidels). The muslim majority can help us beat this evil if they really want to.

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 21, 2004 06:35 AM

Give the INFIDELS or should I say the BASTARDS the same treatment Hiroshima and Nagasaki received (the 2004 version that is)and then let the survivors die of thirst and hunger they deserve it. You never know wich ones are the good guys and or the bad guys so the solution is simple DESTROY and start all over.Get your troops out of there before they are all killed by these cowards.

Posted by: Roland on September 21, 2004 06:44 AM

How tragic, and yet President Bush claims to have made the world a better place. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but before this [still ongoing] war I don't recall hearing about beheadings 2 or 3 times a week. When are we going to learn our lesson? I'll tell you when- when it's too late. Eventually one of these terrorist assh*les are gonna' explode quite literally and it's not gonna' be pretty. How many people need to die? What exactly is the cause? Democracy? Ha- we don't even have democracy in our own nation. We are so corrupt, and yet look down upon other nations that don't put us on pedestals. I say let's fix America before we start meddling with other cultures that we don't even attempt to understand. I'll tell you what, if things keep going like they are, I'm moving to Canada!

Posted by: Dante on September 21, 2004 06:45 AM

My son JOINED the Army, just after 911 because he believes we NEED to fight. Pres. Bush believes the same thing- that is why we're there. But it's time for these PC wimps to get out of the way and let the Marines do their job- namely wipe these bastards out of existence. Kerry is a lying coward and isn't fit to wipe the boots of ANY American soldier. Think CAREFULLY before you vote on November 2 as to whether you want to retain America's independence, or become a suburb of France.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 21, 2004 06:46 AM

This is for Aisha. You say In your opinion America should not vote for Bush and that if we care we should pull out. I think you cannot fight a disease if you just ignore it or run from it....That's what we did for years. We must battle this evil overseas, and we all know president Bush does not play games... It's election year so he has to cool it for now, but he must be re-elected so this evil doesn't get stronger. The terrorist finances has taken a hit. The Oil for Food scandal is out and more. The terrorist would prefer Kerry for president...Why? Because he would do what we've done for the past couple of years...and the terror would just get stronger under his leadership. Kerry is weak and I don't want to take the chance of terrorist taking over my child's school and killing children here in the US... Because the US is divided the terrorist is finding strength in that… So wise up and stand firm to fight the evil-ones. It’s a WAR, they are not going to have mercy on you unless you’re a muslim… GET IT..

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 21, 2004 06:49 AM

To: AnArmyMom...Bless you…Pray for your son and his comrades (Pure evil does exist). America needs to make up its mind. The country is divided because of all the lies and flip-flops going on out there. We Need to fight this battle. To Aisha: do you think if the murdering terrorist got their hands on Nukes they wouldn't use it. They want to kill us all “infidels” Man, Woman, Child, Baby, Grandmothers… We MUST Fight, But we need the support of the majority of the people here at home. Our military needs the encouragement and the support, don't let Kerry do what he's done in the 70s---demean our military... Without them the murderers will be here wreaking havoc...

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 21, 2004 07:00 AM

TO Roland: "infidels" is what the Koran calls people who don't follow the muslim faith. So, muslims calls us "infidels".

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 21, 2004 07:09 AM

i cannot not believe what our world is comeing to when i think of our children having to grow up in a world so horrible.
what the poor family of the late mr armstrong
are going threw i cannot not imagine as i feel so sick at what thous bastards had done, they are the total scum of this planet and i just wish i could have the opportunaty of beheading them with the smallest knife possible which is a bad thing for me to say as i am against any form of voilence,my heart goes out to all the armstrong family and i hope mr armstrong will rest in peace god bless u friend the weldons from uk.

Posted by: david on September 21, 2004 08:28 AM

Nuke and start over is not going to work we'd just create a bunch of other nations, some with nuclear capable, that would hate us.

AnArmyMom, I have a nephew over there as well, his second tour, and I fully support him. I'm from a military family and have had tons of friends in both gulf wars and Afghanistan. This is a needed action.

To those of you calling for pull out of Iraq over these deaths I don't see your point. Compared to other actions in the past to free nations the casualties in this theater are miniscule. It's a shame that others must give their life to further the cause of freedom for another nation and I hope they appreciate it.

Recently I have had my doubts whether the Iraqi's truly appreciate the sacrifice we are making for them. The fact is it is hard to see through the fog of the present. You truly cannot tell until years later.

Germany faced the same insurgencies after World War 2 where tons of the press and people said it wasn't worth staying there. While a generation later I'm not sure if the German people still recognize that sacrifice as a large portion of the World War 2 generation has aged or passed on, but the sacrifice was worth it.

Make sure you don't get too swayed by individuals with no spine, who would turn and run at the drop of a hat. Accomplishing a goal takes struggle, even through these times of difficulty.

Posted by: Digger on September 21, 2004 08:39 AM

Bring this vile Muslim filth to one of our meetings.....We promise they wont be a problem again.


Anti Muslim League

Posted by: Angry on September 21, 2004 09:44 AM

First- My sincere condolences to the family and friends of Eugene Armstrong. I cannot even imagine what you are going through. I am so sorry that this happened because of such a sick and twisted group of people. I can't even explain how much hatred I have for them and what I would love to see happen to them.
Second - I think Bush has done a decent job even though I do not believe or stand by in a lot of what he has done. My vote is for John Kerry. I honestly think the negative things I have read here are just digs coming from the Bush administration. What better way to make yourself look better than to make the other guy look worse!!!!!!!! John Kerry is a great man and I think he would be a great President. I also think his wife has bigger cahona's than Bush!

Posted by: Upset on September 21, 2004 10:39 AM

TO Upset's comments: Look at what you're chatting about the President's wife cahona's...That's why these terrorist are strengthen from rhetoric such as that. NO RESPECT for a sitting president at war....The democrat’s and Kerry’s pessimism and negative grumbling are fueling the strength of the murderers, because they know they have a voice to stand up for them. You must not have kids to want Kerry in office. Look at what happened to Russia--- they did not support the war right? Where they spared from atrocities? NO,,Have you seen the pictures of the kids killed...I bet not. Have you seen the video of Nick Berg and now Eugene.. Even if the terrorist make a deal with Kerry "if he's elected" (I'm sure that why you want him in) do you think we're home free...They'll get us sooner or latter. They would want us to bow down to every thing they want. Ask yourself, Why does the terrorist want Kerry in power? I’ll tell you why, because he would not put a dent in the cause like George W. Bush….

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 21, 2004 11:00 AM

A second hostage has just been beheaded. See link for the story above in the update.

Posted by: Digger on September 21, 2004 11:48 AM

I can not, I absolutely can not believe, the depth of human depravity evidenced by Eugene Armstrong's captors and executors. It would be horrifying enough, for his family, to have heard word of his execution but to behead a man and film it for political gain is soulless and no good can come of this. I pray that his family will experience incredible, supernatural protection and deliverance from the effects of this heinous crime...surely now, we can all agree that only GOD can help us now...these desperate, cowardly, deprave MEN are acting more like hyenas than homosapiens...

Posted by: hyenas and homosapiens on September 21, 2004 12:04 PM

I say we lvl those mother fuckers!! Fuck Kerry and his pussy crew!!! Nuke the fuckers or send and Elite team to eliminate these brutal pieces of shit.

Posted by: BOMB-R-US on September 21, 2004 12:23 PM


Posted by: jamal on September 21, 2004 01:39 PM

Jeez, When will Americans see how similar they are to these people they despise? Americans say: Kill those who kill us, and guess what the Iraqis reply by doing? In lack of a superiour army they take out their frustration by killing innocent people instead, much the same way that Bush does. NO ONE BELIEVE IN SURGICAL PRECISION BOMBS ANY MORE. Any americans keeping track of all the mothers and children they have killed? A lot more than those who died in the WTC in 2001, I am sorry to say. And I have a feeling that is why these guys hate you so much. Seems right, huh?

Posted by: Anti moslem girl on September 21, 2004 03:18 PM

You're telling me you can have an impeachment proceeding for a guy who gets a blowjob in the Whitehouse and then happily leave a guy in office that leads a nation into war behind false information? I don't get you Bushites. I was for this war when Bush was spouting on about WMD, mushroom clouds and all that, but what do you know- turns out it's all bogus! I damn well expect my President to compel deadly accurate information from his operatives before leading my country into war. Over 1000 of our guys dead and over 10,000 injured. Why? For what? And no, I'm not afraid of death and hardship for us as long as it's for a compelling reason. Iraqi's will not embrace and themselves fight for Democracy. They have no deep, personal connection to it as Americans do (because WE wanted our Democracy and paid for it in blood!). Sickening numbers of Iraqi's are happy to live in the Stone Age, and I really don't care. America was doing great before the war; credible threats of force were intimidating Saddam into various acts of compliance (albeit small, and at the last minute); meanwhile, sanctions were killing thousands of Iraqi's. What's not to like? Saddam didn't have any real viable weapon to threaten us with, so who gives a damn? But now, $200 BILLION of my (and your) dollars spent/wasted on people I don't give a sh-- about, while in the same breath they tell me I won't be getting my Social Security benefits when I retire because the fund is heading for bankruptcy? No sir, that damn desert and its inhabitants aren't worth one plug nickel, let alone all our dead and injured boys. IRAQ HAD NO WAY OF THREATENING US! Any man who feeds me a line of crap like Bush did and takes the U.S.A. into war, stealing $200 billion dollars from me and my countrymen, deserves at the very least to be FIRED! Lie to me all day long about a stupid blowjob; it has no relevance on how you run the country, no consequences for its people. I expect my President to be truthful at all times, and yes, Clinton was wrong to lie, but also his personal relationships should never have been inquired about in the first place! Besides, any President deserves a good blowjob after a long day doing that job; yes, even Mr. Bush. Ok, that'll about do it: don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Bush personally, I just think he and his posse are bad for our country.

Posted by: payback! on September 21, 2004 03:21 PM

may god`s curse be upon all those terror groubs

Posted by: tuna on September 21, 2004 03:22 PM

What our troop should do.
In my opinion, the USAF should fly over Fallujah and drop leaflets warning the "good" Iraqi's that they have 24 hrs. to vacate their homes. As they do they must go through US checkpoints to prove their innocence. After the allotted time fly B-52's wing-tip to wing-tip and make Fallujah a large glass parking lot. After that is done continue to the next HELL hole and repeat the process.

Posted by: Larry on September 21, 2004 03:42 PM

I wonder if we went to the nearest 7-11 and took the fucking raghead that runs the damn place out and make a video of us holding a shotgun to his cocksucking allah worshipping head and demand that all the ragheads leave the USA would do any good ?

Posted by: Larry on September 21, 2004 03:50 PM

Some brutal comments.

For "payback!" up there, let me just remind you that France, Germany, the UN, Russia, Britain and a host of other nations had, or provided, the same intelligence on Iraq. George Bush acted on the information reports provided from multiple intelligence communities, not just some forged up documents.

In order to have "brought us to war on lies" you would have to prove that the Bush administration forged all the documents from Britain, France, etc... intelligence communities. A President is there to act on threats and defend our borders and if all the reports are saying there's a threat, he better damn well act or the consequences to our nation could be catastrophic.

I for one find it hard to believe Mr. John Kerry would act, even if he found out there was going to be a terrorist attack next week coming from a certain country, for fear of making a mistake. I'm betting he'd want to sit around for a week calling the UN and asking if they'd support our nation in defending itself. We don't need pansy asses like that in charge of our security.

Posted by: Digger on September 21, 2004 04:03 PM


You are a perfect example of someone who is unable to develop an independent thought or opinion without asking what to think.

Stop believing everything you hear, do your research and you will find...BUSH IS THE ONLY PERSON TO RUN OUR NATION AT A TIME LIKE NOW.

I want you to picture yourself sitting comfortably in your favorite chair, watching some liberal based media station; when suddenly your door is kicked in and several hooded men scream demands at you with guns and knives. Unable to defend yourself or your children (since guns were outlawed by the left) you watch as each person in your family is beheaded. Unable to help them as they cry for your help...you suddenly think "if only I had voted for Bush".

Posted by: tj on September 21, 2004 05:58 PM

Thank You, U&O!! We're brothers in the trenches on this one. Everyone MUST hear about Jihad, that we may resist united. You are NOT alone!!

Posted by: Fred on September 21, 2004 08:06 PM

When will the Iraq people rise up and stop the kiling of their own police forces?

I would much rather fight terrorists on their soil than on ours.


Troops fired on call in the fly boys and flatten the 4 sauare blocks and make sure they get the right ones.

We either kill them or we as a people will surely die. They hate anyone that is not their faith we are defile thier land by placing a foot on it. They on the other hand come to this county and want their rights.

Posted by: adjustedstone on September 21, 2004 08:50 PM

The only way to stop this is to pull our troops out and start taking out their holy sites. Mecca...All of them!!! Bomb them, destroy all of them. What good are these people? Why do we have to fight their war the way they want us too? Why do we have to use tinkertoys when we could inialate their whole fucking land? These people are never going to be civilized ....Who are we trying to kid. Look, I have children to raise just like everybody else and technology has come to a point where it isn't safe anywhere. America is against the wall and no matter who is President the problem is not going away. The problem is escallating and it's time to do something about it. You people mark my words. You will regret not supporting to destroy all of these bastards in a few years. God Bless....

Posted by: Kurt on September 21, 2004 09:19 PM

may god`s curse be upon them

Posted by: tuna on September 22, 2004 04:01 AM

To Anti-Moslem Girl- Obviously you are from a generation who has never been exposed to war. So "we deserve" what we're getting? Suppose one of these hostages- these PRIVATE SECTOR workers who went to Iraq to HELP- was your brother, or uncle or FATHER... would you still say "he deserves it"??

Do the research AMG. Look back to HOW OFTEN U.S. soldiers have DIED, in the hundreds of thousands DEFENDING OTHER countries and their people- because it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO, just as the war in Iraq, IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, because people DESERVE to be free; just as YOU are free (and safe) here in America, BECAUSE MY SON and many others are WILLING to GIVE you that freedom.

It has been TOO long since we had a TRUE Commander in Chief- One with the NERVE to back up the rhetoric.

And to you UPSET- the title is First LADY- and all the money in the world and command of foul language, will not turn Teresa into a LADY. She's more like a mental patient the way they lead her around and try to shut her up-to no avail. and the word is "cohonES".... not cohonas. She has neither class or cohones- she's just out of touch.

Laura Bush is NOW and will always be a VERY classy and elegant LADY- first or not. Hillary nor Teresa even understand the term. Being a lady means have a lot of strength, which Laura OBVIOUSLY does- she makes her point WITHOUT foul language; and speaks only when it's necessary- but always with grace and elegance, even as she is very succinct in making her point.

God bless the murdered hostages and their families- I cannot believe the barbarism that has been shown. But be careful not to condemn an entire society/religion for these few. I do hope though, that the non-fanatical Muslim community will begin not only to speak out against this extremism, but will help fund their more moderate brethren in Iraq; that to stand and fight these barbarians and protect their country and TAKE BACK their religion is something that MUST happen.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 22, 2004 07:18 AM

i have a brother in the army, and it scares me to see what hapend to this guy, the thing is this are just pictures, but if you have satelite and see a spanish or a foreign chanel well my brothers and sisters they show the live event, it was more groosom than these pictures, it got me mad because this poor man cried and screemed until his head was off. im perubian with my brother in the army, i love this country and i consider miself an american and in my opinion we should shirohima theyr asses, some people say what about the other people that live there, well do you remember when we went to free them end rescue them when they were crying out for help? after all that we did for them they desided to grab our flag and burn it, and step an spit on it like it ment nothing, our flag means a lot more than what most people think, for me this flag represents the people that are risking their lives evry day so we can be free, we should take our troops out and let them kill themselves

Posted by: cm on September 22, 2004 07:27 AM

You fucking stupid Americans. These atrocities are occuring because of that Cowboy President you've got. Thinks he's John Wayne fighting injuns. The deaths of these hostages are as a direct result of American foreign policy. Why don't you stop interfering in other countries and concentrste on looking after your own people (Remember them George?) Innocents have died from all sides - civilians, soldiers, contractors - and does stupid George care? You bet he doesn't. He just wants access to oil and doesn't give a shit about people being beheaded. Just get out and we'll use the SAS to hunt these bastards down and give them what they deserve.

Posted by: MB on September 22, 2004 08:30 AM

Yeah thank your SAS for hunting these guys down prior to September 11th.

How do you know we're not preventing a future catastrophe by what we are doing now?

Posted by: Digger on September 22, 2004 09:15 AM


You mention France, Germany, Russia, the U.N., and their respective intelligence efforts providing justification for war. What did these so-called ‘documents’ say? I wouldn’t suppose anything was “forged”, but I wouldn’t mind seeing them if you can point me in the right direction. What I do know is what France, Germany and Russia were saying prior to the war in hopes of seeking its delay….

President Putin, starting a two-day state visit to France, said that a military intervention against Baghdad could have "serious consequences". M. Chirac said "nothing justified" a war today. He said that France, with Russia and Germany, was making a "moral judgment" but not deliberately seeking to damage the transatlantic alliance.

Again, not that war was unjustified, I personally think grounds existed based on Iraq’s defiance of U.N. resolutions alone, and that a credible threat of force is absolutely essential to U.N. validity. How that war is being prosecuted and whether or not delaying it would have cost us anything is another matter. In going it alone based on misinformation, America’s credibility has most certainly suffered. Would you at least agree that prosecuting wars in the future based on misinformation could also lead to “catastrophic consequences” for our nation, and others?
And, you may be right about Kerry… but you may also be wrong. We all have to make a choice between these two candidates, and I respect you choose Bush. I guess I’ll choose Kerry, and maybe I’ll be wrong. But I do tend to think Kerry didn’t earn his purple hearts and silver and bronze stars because of his timidity, so I think he will defend the U.S. and that he is probably the lesser of two dissatisfying choices (this time around).

Ignorant doesn’t even begin to describe your baseless, unsubstantiated, not to mention ridiculous, comments. You don’t even know me; you attack my opinion and the few direct observational facts I cite and then go on to suggest that I do “research” in order to discover their flaws. You do this while at the same time offering no shred of fact or evidence to support whatever it is your trying to say, which is, I think, that you dig Bush. Well, good for you… grab that bull and ride it. You are a perfect automaton.

Posted by: payback! on September 22, 2004 09:24 AM


Resolution 1441 was passed by all, due to this intelligence, so it is on the books, look it up. The only real difference is in how the countries chose to handle the breaking of 14 resolutions by Iraq.

How many chances should a country be given before you put the smack down on them for repeating the same offence over and over and over again? I'd say maybe 3 times. It took 14 TIMES for the U.S. because Clinton wouldn't act. France and Germany wanted to give them another 14 times I guess.

In the end it comes down to the fact that if you don't back up your words with action your words are meaningless.

I guess we just agree to disagree on some things. These people attacking Kerrys war record and medals are not my kind of people. It's what he did after the war that matters most to me. Not the fact that he protested or spoke up, I mean his senatorial track record. It just doesn't fit well with my beliefs, that's all.

His testimony in '71 was really damaging to POW's in Vietnam, but he was a young guy back then and I don't think he understood the impact it would have on giving the North Vietnamese something to wave around.

So I don't fault him for that.

I just think we need a strong leader who talks once or twice and then acts, no dilly dallying around. I think people realize Bush is like that and that he's not going to change.

For some that is scary I'm sure, but if you believe he is out for our best interests, for defending us, then it shouldn't bother you as much.

Posted by: Digger on September 22, 2004 09:43 AM


Point taken.

We may disagree on some things, although I don't think we dissagree with respect to the U.N. resolutions. I state in my note that I believe war was justified on those grounds.

Posted by: payback! on September 22, 2004 09:54 AM

U.S. please don't kick out Bush for the sake of us, the rest of the world who half of the time don't know what we are doing and need the US to bail us out.
You need a strong leader who will put scum like zarqawi and his band of pussies where they belong. I can't imagine that some people are proud of what this "Yellow Belly" does. Shame on the rest of Islam that sits and watches.

Posted by: Petrerson on September 22, 2004 01:33 PM

We need to fight with the same viciousness that these scumbags display. Normally, violence can be challenged without further violence. But these aren't normal people we're dealing with. These towelhead pusballs need to be eradicated. We should not be looking for bin Laden or Zaquawi to merely take them into custody. We need to bring them in dead---hopefully beheaded. Until we catch them, we should be showing just how "evil" we can be. After all, since these camel-humpers believe that we are The Great Satan, we should at least live up to that reputation. We should make it clear to them that for every American/coalition member they behead, twenty of their detainees will meet with the same fate. We need to stop fighting this "politically correct" war. We have to get dirty in our dealings with these scumbags. Until then, they will continue the carnage, knowing there are very few, if any, ramifications that they'll have to deal with.

Posted by: mike on September 22, 2004 03:27 PM


You seem very hostile. I guess the thought of living in a Nation drowning in the confusion of Kerry scars you. This might explain your support for him, you both seem confused.

You want me to share my position? Here it is...

WHAT YOU SAID: 'Iraqi's were happy living in the stone age', what did you mean by that? As you so clearly stated; I do not know you...well how many Iraqi's have you made an effort to know? You may want to think about that before you make claims that they enjoy living in the boxes.

WHAT YOU SAID: 'America was doing great before the war’ Let me begin by saying, the Clinton era was nothing more than economic bubble waiting to burst. I don't care as mucha s you do, what he did intimately. I care that the marvelous economy Dems claim we had; did not exist. It was driven by fake financials throughout large companies like Enron. Towards the end of the Clinton administration the economy bubble BURST and Bush suddenly inherits a recession. Lost jobs due to corporations. Eight months into Bushes administration 9/11 occurred. More lost jobs. Now we recover, we flourish and you are too busy listening to CBS to know it. (Don't forget, Clintons own words, he refused to take Bin Laden. Not surprising considering he let our solider die in vain when he pulled out of Somalia. Now tell me again why we were attacked on 9/11.) HOW MUCH OF THIS DID YOU KNOW????
There are three other points I wanted to make, but I think this should be sufficient. I pray for you, I pray that you will have the courage to contradict the propaganda and open your mind to facts.

Posted by: tj on September 22, 2004 07:33 PM

Payback: FYI-

Although you do not seem to take you vote seriously (assumed by your comments to Digger). Take a moment to review the thirty flip-flops listed at the following website. After you read this, tell me what you think he believes in.I wish I knew.


Posted by: tj on September 22, 2004 08:08 PM

LISTEN FOLKS . . . President BUSH is doing an excellent job as COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the GREATEST armed forces in the world. And these ignorant, uneducated, WEAK COWARDS are only losing a lost war which will end with the last drop of blood, being their own. What truely amazes me . . . is how my own BROTHER and SISTERS of my country of these United States of America can, however so remotely, degrade or otherwise deminish the HONORABLE actions of President G. W. Bush during these world-wind of times. United we stand . . . divided we shall fall. God Bless our Men and Women in arms, and the other unarmed Americans who "SACRAFICE" their skills to help a yearning country to be Independant and FREE . . . the DEMOCRATIC and AMERICAN way!!! GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . "W" 2004!!! Cheers, Chief Joe, USN.

Posted by: Chief Joe on September 22, 2004 09:38 PM

those towel headed sand niggers have opened up a can of woopass now, and there is no cave they can hide in now. Nuke em till they glow, and as they run around on the hot glass parking lot shoot em with the big guns. This world has no need of muslims,or Islam, but this world does need America!

Posted by: seymour gash on September 22, 2004 09:46 PM

F T W Nuke em till they glow

Posted by: seymour on September 22, 2004 09:50 PM

They are sick fuckers who there is no reasoning with them they find glory in there acts of sickness,i just hope our troops or bombs find them,give them murderers no mercy,eye 4 an eye.
Thoughts with those brave victims and families.

Posted by: monk on September 22, 2004 11:45 PM

What the hell are our people doing working out there. They should get the hell out and let those pricks kill each other. Iraqis should be baned from travelling throughout Europe and the U.S. I don't give a shit if "the average Iraqi is peacefull, they are letting this fucking mindless violence do on under their noses. Lets disable Iraq and get the fuck out of there.

Posted by: Dave on September 23, 2004 01:13 AM

It is not Bush that is doing this! Remember the blood of 9/11 is on the hands of ONE man!!!! Bill Clinton! Had Clinton taken care of OBL when we had him cornered 9/11 and maybe all the rest of this would have NEVER happen, of course he was to busy playing hide the cigar with a fat little intern! And yes maybe we didn't find WMD's in IRAQ but there were there, you'd have to be stupid to think he didn't have them...he used them against the KURDS!!! And yes Saddam had links to OBL...Unfortunately most of the american public believes everything they see on the TV and the media is so liberial leaning you only get one side of the story!...Remember this...how many terrorist were walking free on the face of the earth BEFORE Bush?

I am in the military and after Bush is re-elected you will start to see a difference in the policy's in IRAQ and in dealing with these bastrads you can bank on it!!!!

IMO if John "Flip-Flop" Kerry gets elected it will show these bastards that the americans are weak and that they have won the first battle by scaring the country into voting for John Kerry, I mean hell what did Clinton do about terrorist?...ZIP!

Posted by: Rodbo on September 23, 2004 04:29 AM

I'll tell you what I am DAMN SICK AND TIRED OF!
I'm tired of hearing ANTI-AMERICAN Americans drivel! Micheal Moore, and the rest of you, GET OUT OF AMERICA! True Americans don't need or want you. You take and take, not willing to give anything back. You are yellow-bellied lily-livered cowards. I'm talking about many of our own politicians. How the hell did it come to this? I am so MAD!

Posted by: patriotmother on September 23, 2004 07:45 AM

There is only one SURE way to let the TERRORISTS (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Alaxa Martyrs, et.al. [Make no mistake..., THEY ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE!]) know that the people of the USA we will not rest, until they are destroyed, for the acts perpetrated upon us. That is to RE-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH! and then turn the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines loose to do whatever needs to be done. Including, destroying Mosques, if that is where the terrorists seek safe-haven. Unlike the terrorists, the US military does not intentionally target civilians..., but if civilians get in the way..., they have to be considerd casualties of war. We lost 3,000+ civilians on 9/11/2001. They must be avenged, and the WAR must be taken to the enemy, NOW!

Posted by: Todd on September 23, 2004 08:03 AM

What, can't handle my posts?
you can't handle the TRUTH

Posted by: Mb on September 23, 2004 08:04 AM

I'm just someone who is interested in knowing how come everyone has gotten off track! We forgot what Bush first excuse for war was (weapons of mass destruction) then we forgot the second excuse once the first one was indeed made up. Oh yeah! The second one was (We need to free the Iraqie people).

Now to me, I think this was all about oil and Bush making mega bucks, but I could be wrong. Just feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Let me take a deep breath here! Now, since Bush has been in office; we've had the 911 attack, we've had price increase in oil, and we are paying with thousands of our son, daughters, niece, nephews, uncles, aunts, mothers & fathers lives (which is the highest price ever)for a war we don't know the real reason for existing.

Afterward, you know since the war was over, we are paying with our pow's being beheaded.

Oh yeah! once again, it is because of terroist! I forgot! Only, Bush didn't attack Afghanistand where the terriost's are! They decided on attacking Iraq (you know, for the oil, I mean democracy)!

Oh well, this manner/habit sounds like most Repulicans. You know, how they are. Well now, I know you just screwed me in the..., just four years ago each year until now, but, I'm just gonna let you screw me just oneeeeeeeeeeee more time. For another four years at that! It doesn't have to make since to me, just keep up the good screw! I really don't mind losing a thing! My life is not important and neither is yours! I'll vote you right back in for another "come what may."

And if Bush really wanted some Democracy in his life, why go there? WE STILL NEED IT HERE IN AMERICA! If democracy can't or won't be truely excerised here in America why should Bush be allowed to spend our tax paying money & our family lives trying to establish democracy in another country who doesn't appriciate the people who is trying to establish it. Let alone it not being rightously practice here in America.

I don't know much about Kerry, but I sure as hell won't bend over and say, "Bush, do it to me one more time."

Rather than to see my countrymen behead, I say let those people have their country the way they see fit as we have our country the way our country see fit. We're not right in many ways, yet no other country is saying because of it we are going to start a war about.

If you truly beleive in God's Word then accept this:

Ecc 7:25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason [of things], and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness [and] madness:

Pro 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent [is] to understand his way: but the folly of fools [is] deceit.

We need to know exactly who is the prudent vs the fool.

So, pray with me all children of God.

God grant our future President the serenity to accept the things he cannot change, the courage to change the things he can, and the wisdom to know the difference AMEN!

Posted by: someonewhoiscurious on September 23, 2004 08:10 AM

Stop being so racist some of you guys.

You have no shame.

The people who did this were porbably not muslims. Muslims arn't allowed to do this stuff. Research the religion yourself before you make these embarrassing remarks.

Posted by: thinker on September 23, 2004 09:08 AM

Stop being so racist some of you guys.

You have no shame.

The people who did this were porbably not muslims. Muslims arn't allowed to do this stuff. Research the religion yourself before you make these embarrassing remarks.

Posted by: thinker on September 23, 2004 09:08 AM

Stop being so racist some of you guys.

You have no shame.

The people who did this were porbably not muslims. Muslims arn't allowed to do this stuff. Research the religion yourself before you make these embarrassing remarks.

Posted by: thinker on September 23, 2004 09:09 AM

TO Thinker:

I don't remember who said this, but is sticks in my mind when I read comments like yours:

"All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims"

Think about that the next time these DEVILS praising their Muslim teachings as they saw an Americans head off with a dull knife. I highly doubt you will ever see a follower of Jesus do something of that extreme evil in the name of GOD. As far as I'm concerned you may as well been standing next to them with your ignorant support in the video. Your support for these DEVILS angers me to the point where I cannot help but tell you to GET OUT OF OUR NATION ON A FOUNDED BASED ON A TRUE RELIGION!

Posted by: areyoukidding on September 23, 2004 09:32 AM

send every troop we have got if they can murder ur people well murder theres !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: potnoddles on September 23, 2004 09:48 AM

All terrorists are Muslims????
What about the IRA? Beider-Meinhoff?

Posted by: mb on September 23, 2004 10:38 AM


The quote portrayed above directly related to these beheadings, which is the current subject matter of this blog. Your point is taken.

Posted by: areyoukidding on September 23, 2004 11:07 AM

To much rhetoric in politics....We're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.. The terrorists have too much support from the left. The terrorists have T. Kenney bitching about how we humiliated some terrorist prisoners with panties on their face...GIVE ME A BREAK. I think we should stop playing games with the DEVILS and begin really fighting this thing like a real WAR. But we can’t because the human shields around the terrorists might get hurt or killed. And if that happens the human rights, the muslim ledge, the left, the UN, CNN, CBS, and anyone who wants to see us loose will start crying out that America is being evil or arrogant. How can we win this war with so much pessimism and negativity from our leftist/liberal politicians....The Vietnam war couldn’t be won and many lost their lives because of such negative and pessimistic grumbling from people here in the USA... GIVE ME A BREAK ABOUT IT’S YOUR RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE WAR…YOU’RE COSTING US OUR GUYS DIEING…We must believe if we stand together and show support for our military actions and our country “AMERICA” (who has fought and lost many lives protecting others) WE WILL WIN.

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 23, 2004 11:13 AM

To clear up the quote, it was made by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, General Manager of Al-Arabiya News Channel.

You can read the article here (cut and paste):

Here's what he said verbatim from the beginning of the article:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

Posted by: Digger on September 23, 2004 11:15 AM

Thank you Digger, I think your reference will help those who ignore the point of the statement in their efforts to create pointless contradictions. I will retain the site in my archives for future reference, thanks again.

Posted by: areyoukidding on September 23, 2004 12:17 PM


I seem very hostile? I express an opinion that very obviously differs from yours, and you unleash on me, not an argument, but a personal attack. And I’m the one who’s hostile. That’s brilliant.

As far as my statement about Iraqis being “happy to live in the Stone Age”; note the context of it in relation to my previous sentence. That said, I’ll try to clarify for you what I mean. Although logically I realize that probably not all Iraqi’s enjoy living in an oppressive society, I merely try to dramatize the fact that they appear to be unwilling, unable, or uninterested in organizing themselves to defy the inherent oppressive nature of theocratic rule… and that’s fine, so be it. I do not support the concept of depleting American resources in an effort to deliver Democracy to people who are not prepared to fight for and/or defend it. Globally speaking, Saddam Hussein prior to the war wasn’t much more than an impotent dictator baking in the desert who occasionally enjoyed brutalizing his countrymen. No WMD, no noteworthy connections to Al Qaeda. Sure, he was in breach of U.N. resolutions, but what does it cost us to agree to a delayed deadline for military action with such an ineffectual adversary, at which time other nations could have been compelled to join in the endeavor (AND EXPENSE!) of wiping him out?

On the ‘America was doing fine before the war’. You take one half of a sentence and then completely miss, or disregard, the fact that the statement was exclusively addressing the potential military situation between America and Iraq, and that’s it. The statement was making no commentary on America’s domestic economic status. How you then embark on a dissertation of how Clinton and his entire “era” was the unwitting beneficiary of illicit corporate misdeeds is completely beyond me. Putting that aside though, given the shockingly sweeping and simplistic conclusions you seemed to be making about America’s economy and how it arrived at its current disposition, I’m quite certain I would completely disagree with your viewpoint. A flourishing economy? Record setting Federal deficit and jobs still off the mark from the Clinton years… wherever do you get your info?

In your second post, you direct me to one of the most conservative sites in the nation and expect me to digest their snippet quotations of Kerry as proof of his “flip flopping”. I do not rely on such strident ‘agenda based’ organizations for information upon which to base my decisions, neither should you. And because I fundamentally disagree with Bush on many important topics (Iraq being just one), that is not to say I blindly support everything that is ‘Kerry’. I clearly stated in my previous post that he is, in my view, the better of two dissatisfying choices. As for the rest of your assumptions of me (i.e. listening to CBS), not only are they wrong, they continue only to enhance the fallacy upon which you rest your arguments.

But you’ll pray for me. Now THAT figures.

Posted by: payback! on September 23, 2004 12:19 PM

To payback: I could only get through your 1st paragraph and felt I needed to respond...Stop crying over spilt milk...Open your thick skull...YOU ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS with YOUR reasoning. WE ARE AT WAR. Don't be so stupid to think that SADAM didn't have capabilities to get WMD...That's what Kerry and the leftist would like to keep planting in our heads. Sadam was loaded with money and power and with that he could get anything he wanted. He was defiant to the UN and we needed to follow through with our threats if he did listen one last time. Did you see the news that exposed the UN's oil for food scandal on Fox...ALL of Them (France, Germ, Russia, and the UN) WERE Making deals with SADAM fattening his pockets with the Iraqi's money for food and medicine. STOP Supporting SADAM..He had capabilities for getting the WMDs ok. It's good that he's out. Stop making him out as a victim. He's not...I wouldn't be surprise to find out he sold the WMDs to Iran or any terrorist he could find..It's Good that He Out and not so much of a big guy when he has his hands behind his back...

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 23, 2004 12:51 PM

To Patriot Mother- you go girl!

To MB- respectfully, may I ask where you are from? Most likely wherever that may be, you and your country have benefited (most likely directly) from our largesse or protection at one point or another.

You, and most of the world, can be glad that we don't "mind our own business" or bother ourselves with people who maintain opinions like yours.

Just remember MB, IF America were to fall (which it won't) countries like yours would be swallowed up by the Evil people like the ones WE fight now- not only for ourselves, but for the sniveling cowards like France and Germany, who would rather collaborate with trash like Hussein than play it straight with THEIR people's best interests at heart. THEY TOOK MONEY and screwed the people of Iraq, turning a blind eye- just as they are now doing with the poor people of Sudan, who are being SLAUGHTERED. But they'll wait for Us- AGAIN before have the nerve to right a wrong- and my guess is you'll wait on the sidelines too- even as OTHER young men fight the battles that ALLOW you to voice your opinions.

I hope at some point, you learn to look at more than one side of an issue- and do it dispassionately and without personal slurs on any group of people.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 23, 2004 02:06 PM

Has anybody forgotten that this whole mess got started because we were looking for Bin Laudin. or that the terrorist flying the plane were from Saudi Arabia [Incidently thats where Bin Laudin is from]. What ever happen to Bin Laudin anyway? and why in the hell are we in Iraq
1] Because they were responsible for 911 [Wrong]
2] Because they had WMD [Wrong again]
3] We are liberating the people [Wrong again]
because if you are trying to liberate a people
thats cutting off your heads, then I think
it's time to rethink your position.
4] Try saying "I don't know" [Now you got it] Oh
and by the way, where is Bin Laudin?

Posted by: Common Sense on September 23, 2004 02:23 PM

Common Sense, it's not the Iraqi's beheading the civilian workers it is al-Qaeda terrorists.

In my opinion the fact they've been able to enter the country, secure themselves a hidey hole and remain undetected is a pretty clear sign that they've been there before the invasion.

Who enters an unknown country and manages to have a secret spot without already having people there to help you?

I think that's a pretty "common sense" logical conclusion if you ask me.

Posted by: Digger on September 23, 2004 02:29 PM


poke your head in somewhere else. That post was a specific response to 'tj'. You don't have to like it. You obviously don't understand it. You clearly admit you didn't read it. So shut up.

"your killing our troops"
"stop supporting Sadam"

Boo Hoo... look who's crying!

Everyone knows what sadam's strategic intentions were. You say it like it's some great revelation, but you miss the point.

Move on... you haven't added anything to this discussion

Posted by: payback! on September 23, 2004 02:36 PM

Common Sense

Thank you.

(It's like stepping on a Bush-nest in here)

Posted by: payback! on September 23, 2004 02:50 PM

Payback: incase you're lost...this is a blog and everyone is included and entitled... You shouldn't be called "payback" you should be called "liberal"...I'm not crying and hoping we fail in Iraq YOU ARE LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 23, 2004 02:54 PM

Make you feel better? Got me all summed up now don't you?

Posted by: liberal on September 23, 2004 02:58 PM


Make you feel better? Got me all summed up now don't you?

Right. Like I HOPE we fail in Iraq. You're a real piece of work.

Posted by: liberal on September 23, 2004 02:59 PM

Payback: Well, you, the leftist and Kerry are all strengthening the bloody DEVILS....because they use your sense of thinking to justify the beheadings and murders...SO, YOU GO with your bad self...STRENGHT for the MUrderers...OVER with U

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 23, 2004 03:05 PM


And YOU understand my sense of thinking. Right.
yeah, the beheadings are good... that's really what I'm trying to say. Your pathetic.

The war is what it is now. Before, you got a guy isolated in a desert. Now you got beheadings and terrorism run amuck. Nice.

So nuke it or whatever needs to be done, but get it done! And then get out!

Posted by: payback! on September 23, 2004 03:11 PM

Payback: what fantasy are you living in...Are you thinking that things would be fine and dandy if we didn't go into Iraq..PLEASE, Look at Sept. 11..
Did we do anything then...As I remember life was a bed of roses (since Clinton ignored the cancer it got bigger and stronger).. We MUST FACE this ThIng, fight it, and win it.. It's like a cancer. WE MUST fight/catch it early before it spreads here. How can you think that people who kill babies, children, etc. would have mercy if we pull out. Isn't that what U are advocating for... Why does the terrorist want Kerry and Hate Bush? Because they want us To cut and run...Well, it doesn't sound to me as if you are supporting our men and women in the military. Don't ever say you support our troops...Your words and pleas for us “Americans” not to be outraged and to want justice---gives support not to our troops but to the enemy. Wise up

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 23, 2004 03:23 PM

your assumptions are in OVERDRIVE!
Clinton ignored the cancer? If I remember correctly, he authorized the assasinations of Bin and his whole posse. The agencies charges with the task went to court fight its lagality. Prior to 9/11, Bush has 44 warnings of Al Qaeda's immenant threat to the U.S. He was provided intelligence about two Al Qaeda operatives who left overseas for a strategic meeting and then returned to L.A. They were two of the hijackers. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN! But who could have known the magnatude of what lay ahead? Bin Lauden was even surprised at how devastating it was. You can't lay the blame for this on any one man's doorstep. They all dropped the ball!

Support our troops? Yeah, try to have a dissenting opinion about the Iraq situation and here come the Pubs to say you don't support the troops. Ridiculous!
Maybe YOU should wise up.


Posted by: payback! on September 23, 2004 03:35 PM



Posted by: TJ on September 23, 2004 04:49 PM

We need to start eradicating these towelhead scumbags, and not concern ourselves so much with collateral damage. We cannot stand idly by, waiting for these wastes-of-oxygen to behead another American or coalition member. We need to be proactive in our dealings with them, and go right at them. After all, this is the United States of America---not France.

Posted by: mike on September 23, 2004 05:41 PM

"areyoukidding" - "I highly doubt you will ever see a follower of Jesus do something of that extreme evil in the name of GOD."

Umm, what about the KKK?

I really am appalled by the amoung of racism there still is in this country.

"Larry:" - "I wonder if we went to the nearest 7-11 and took the fucking raghead that runs the damn place out and make a video of us holding a shotgun to his cocksucking allah worshipping head and demand that all the ragheads leave the USA would do any good ?"

Larry, are you aware that most of the Muslim 7-11 owners you see are Indian, not Middle Eastern? I'm sure you don't, as I'm sure you're just another ignorant American who doesn't care to learn about the peoples of the world, but instead group them all together. You don't still call Asian "orientals" by chance, do you? Oh forget it, I'm sure you are too far gone to be reached...

Listen, I am not going to deny that there is a problem here, but "nuking them" (whoever "them" is) like payback, seymour, warrior and knowgoal have suggested is certainly not the answer- you can't just wipe out an entire culture of people- who do we think we are, a bunch of Nazis?

And TJ- your whole scenario of "several hooded men scream demands at you with guns and knives" if Kerry is elected is a bit extreme, don't you think? I mean, where would all these hooded men come from? We aren't even letting Cat Stevens in the country!

Maybe if the conservatives and the liberals stop bickering back and forth we can all sit down and come up with a solution. The problem is the terrorists, and they aren't just in Iraq. We've got to stop killing innocent victims, and have to start to be more understanding of other cultures and other religions. We live together in this world, and together as people we need to put an end to these terrorists. Nuke the terrorists, not the nation!

Oh, and can we stop saying ragheads? That is so degrading and sounds so uneducated. Let's not make America look worse than it already does right now.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 24, 2004 04:40 AM

Hi Reasonalbe wit: can you tell me why America always have to try to please other nations or watch what "we" say around them, or BE MORE sensitive towards them. Why are these muslim nations able to say or do to us what ever they please and still get support and funding.. We "Americans" are very upset how the middle east (especially the majority of the people who follow the muslim religion) are treating us... They're treating us like we are inferior and that they are higher than us "infidels", OK.. Why should we be nice to them? Please Understand this: they hate us with a passion and nothing we do will change it. They will just take what we have to give then stab us in the back or even behead us. We have to defend ourselves..They are not our "friends".. Their goal is to convert us (so they won't kill us) to the muslim religion. I know that not "all" muslims are bad.. But try looking @ the majority of muslims. A poll was done in Iraq which showed 50% thought the beheadings was ok ..Your suggestion for us to be more understanding of other cultures and other religions is not working. We have to use the language they understand--->real military force.

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 24, 2004 06:23 AM

UpsetandOutraged- When did I ask "Americans" (why are we quoting this word- are we not really Americans?) to "watch what 'we' say around them, or BE MORE sensitive towards them?" (Again, this term "them" appears). Because I asked you not to say "towelhead?" Sorry for trying to enlighten some of you uneducated fools and to bring you up from the lower class. And again you generalize, insisting that the ENTIRE middle east is treating us poorly. I think before you spout your ignorant hatred that you should do more research.

And why shouldn't Americans be more tolerant, or "sensitive" as you put it? As a mixing pot nation, you don't think that we should be accepting of different backgrounds, even if they differ from your own? Well then you prove that democracy doesn't work, that the ideology that this country was founded upon is corrupt. President Bush is claiming to spread democracy in Iraq, and yet Rumsfeld is claiming that not all areas of the country will be allowed to vote: what kind of democracy is that? Selective democracy? Sounds pretty corrupt to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that you don't know much about Islam. I'm willing to bet that what you know you've learned from the "news" (that's in quotes because American news is severely distorted) and those polls that you like to spew at me. Why don't you educate yourself a little more- ok, a lot more- and then reply. I would certainly enjoy having an intellectual conversation with you.

Oh, and do yourself a favor- why don't you spellcheck your posts before you submit them. A grammatically incorrect and misspelled reply doesn't do much to strengthen your argument.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 24, 2004 06:49 AM

Dear Reasonable: I've read your posts and in some areas I agree with you. To condemn an entire group or use racial epithets, no matter our level of anger, is incorrect. On the other side of that though, you come across as some sort of elitist with the snipes you take at "Americans" and your assertions that we lack tolerance.

Sure, we have our basic idiosyncrasies- as do the people of all countries. There are stereotypes assigned to almost every nationality- that doesn't make it true of every person from that country- only the one or two people the person making the statement actually met.

As an American, I am truly at a loss, and I suspect some other folks here are too, to understand WHY so much of the world wants to hold us in contempt. THat is of course, until you NEED us for something. Then suddenly, the world looks to America to right a wrong (ie WWII when WE turned the tide against Hitler). We could have just stayed home. Certainly what was happening to Europe had little to with us. And in the aftermath when we REBUILT the whole damned continent- no one was saying "ugly American" then, oh no- they were MORE than happy to let us take on the burden- protect, rebuild, feed etc.

Two years ago, the UN, after fourteen resolutions (Stop, ... or I'll say STOP again!) lacked the nerve to follow through. They are a group of Bureaucrats who only SPEAK of action- but take none. (look at Sudan)... SO GW stepped up and DID what the UN had SAID it would do if Saddam continued. Has he been 100% right- No, not at all. But I'll take ACTION over cowardice any day- and worse yet, honesty over duplicity (France and Germany supplying Saddam and taking money for it; UN food for Oil Program; etc.) any day.

Now, when WE were attacked we're told "we deserved it" by the elitist community. Even Kerry seems to be of that thought process.

Of COURSE things are deteriorating in Iraq. We're TURNING the tide, and the TERRORISTS, NOT the Iraqi people, don't want that to happen. So they step up attacks to try to SEEM as if they're in control, and can scare us into leaving. Do you REALLY think if we leave, they'll just disband and forget about annihilating our civilization? Are you really that naive?

I guess what the world fails to understand about America and its people; (many of whom CAME here and are as much a loving citizen of this country as any of us born and bred here) is that, although we'd LIKE it if the world appreciated us- and perhaps even liked us- WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE SEE AS RIGHT, liked or not.

You remind me of a teenager screaming "I hate you" at your parent, but knowing years later you'll be glad they stood their ground.

Your points are your points- I respect that. But have respect for other's points of view also. That is the RIGHT America has fought for and will continue to fight to provide to everyone. Just remember, that in a LOT of areas of this world, the things you say here so casually, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 24, 2004 07:23 AM


I think that what I am trying to say has somehow been misconstrued.

I am in no way in favor of Kerry's laissez-faire position, if that even IS his position. I absolutely believe that action needs to be taken and that the terrorists needs to be taken down, immediately. And I absolutely agree with you that other countries look down upon us and criticize our actions until they are in need of help, at which point they call upon us for aid. Do I think that we should have gone to war in the first place- I'm not so sure. Do I believe that we need to finish the job we started- absolutely. Do I think it's going well- not at all; I think that we could be doing a better job.

What I was trying to point out, which is in the beginning of my first post, is that racism and prejudice are not helping this whole situation. Do you honestly believe that wiping out the entire middle east is going to solve all of our problems? And this is not just directed at you, AnArmyMom, but everyone- does everyone really think that this is a valid solution? Because if you do, then you are truly ignorant.

These are nations that have been around long before the USA who have history and culture that the US will never know. As an educator myself, it pains me to see that people in a great country full of resources refuse to educate themselves and to open themselves up to learning about other people. If you review the comments from this entire thread, you can plainly see that the people here are unwilling to do that. As Americans, as a nation of people from different backgrounds, different morals, different ethics, different ideologies, how can we expect the people of the world to be civil with us if we can't even be civil with ourselves?

These terrorist assh*les need to be defeated, but let's not condemn an entire region of the world with them.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 24, 2004 08:02 AM

Dear reasonable wit: Please understand that in the atmosphere of blogging it's understood for persons to misspell words or even use computer jargon (don't be so critical) due to the fast pace and informal environment such as this... Second, I learned about muslims from what the majority of the muslim followers has shown on TV (Yes, TV/media). They've showed me that because I don't believe in allah they will kill me. YOU GET IT buddy. Does their Koran really teach to love people who have different beliefs? Oh, you would say yes. Why don't you go to Iraq, Iran, or even Sudi and say you are a Christian out loud. Your muslim brothers will have open arms for you.. YEAH RIGHT By the way the poll I was talking about said that 50% of the muslim WORLD agreed with the beheadings that recently happened...TAKE IT HOW EVER YOU WANT...AND you can try to demean my intellect but that's not going to stop my opinion and voice.

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 24, 2004 08:05 AM


Bravo! (for the most part)

BTW: My "nuke em" line was not meant literally. I do realize that is not a viable solution, at least not one that will place us in very good standing. My only contention here is that I disagree with how and why George Bush took us into Iraq. But now we’re there, and yes, the world is a better place without Hussein. Anyone have an idea about the best path forward from here? America can’t continue to shoulder the military and financial burden of these actions alone (or essentially alone). What do we want for the future of American foreign policy?

Posted by: payback! on September 24, 2004 08:06 AM

Well said, Reasonable. That was my point also- we cannot condemn an entire culture.

And yes, Upset, you SHOULD read the Koran and speak with some of the "normal" Muslims who do NOT susbscribe to the beheadings or other immoral activity being perpetrated in the name of Islam.

There are moderate, and not so moderate, Islamic groups now speaking up to "take back" their religion that has been hi-jacked and perverted by a FEW sick thinkers.

The problem in our country is that our DEPENDENCE on the media- a primarily liberally minded political group of people WITH AN AGENDA- subverts the free thinking our population has been so proud of through its short history.

Wake up folks- don't condemn whole cultures. LOOK , really look first at yourself and your prejudices and REALIZE that that is exactly the kind of thinking that is fueling this conflict.

As far as the way forward, we have NO choice but to complete the path we are on. Can we do things better? Yes. We must be MORE decisive in our actions- and if some buildings (mosques) get caught in collateral damage- so be it. Does anyone really think the terrorists cared on 911 when so many people and buildings in NYC came down? I don't think so.

We all have to work together- and believe TOGETHER in ourselves and the mission at hand.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 24, 2004 08:36 AM

Thanks AnArmyMom for making that point. We shouldn't condemn an entire culture-->that's wrong. Seeing Eugene's neck being sawed off outraged me and I was not going to make any excuses or try to pacify what had happen. I know we have to rationalize the situation, but how can I ever understand the sawing off of a neck of a being..
I agree, we cannot condemn a culture--believe it or not --My own brother converted to muslim and I love him. But, why can't the muslim people help us fight these terrorists? Why can't they stand up with us publicly and support the fight against terror? I don't hear or see protests against the terrorist, but I see protest against the man who's trying to fight it. Is the right?

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 24, 2004 09:00 AM

UpsetandOutraged and AnArmyMom- awesome points.

In my opinion, I think that is is harder for the Muslims of the Middle East to stand up against terrorists- I mean, they're kidnapping and beheading people left and right. Could you imagine how afraid they must be? To live in a place where there has been constant fighting for the past - oh, I don't know, how long has it been now? Before the Gulf War at least! Constant termoil, constant danger, and now sick, sick terrorists who at the drop of a hat would broadcast such a demonic murder as a beheading. I don't blame them for not wanting to stand up against them, especially when these terrorists are in their own back yard. I'm sure that if our country was taken over by terrorists, we would experience the same fear and cowardice- does anyone remember the McCarthy hearings and the Red Scare (or at least know about them)?

And I don't blame them for speaking against the US either. Pres. Bush painted a portrait to Americans and Iraqis alike that he was going to go in there and solve everyone's problems. And he made it seem that it was going to happen almost immediately. And for that I am angry- he should have given it to us straight and not dismissed how tumultuous this was going to be. I'd be pissed at the US too if I were them. They may have been living in hard times with Sadam as dictator, but at least they weren't being bombed every other day- and I am in NO WAY condoning or supporting Sadam Hussein (I foresee a ton of replies about that!).

But Payback is right- what do we do from here? What do we do in the future? I think that we should focus on Iraq until they can support themselves, and lay low for a while after that. Let's focus on America for once and deal with our own issues- health care, the economy, social security. The only other war I think we should get ourselves involved with is the War on AIDS. Let's stop increasing Congress' salary and start using our money for humanitarian causes. Ah, that's just the liberal in me coming out!

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 24, 2004 09:41 AM

Bush sent troops to Iraq for his self-interest. The troop should not be there in the first place. Irag or should I say Saddam is not behind what happened on 9/11. Bush should only focus on haunting down the Al Quedas only. Damn Bush... Uses Americans for his self-interest. DONT VOTE FOR HIM!

Posted by: AntiBushCampaigning4Kerry on September 24, 2004 10:12 AM

Dear Anti-
YOUR president, Clinton, had Bin Laden OFFERED to him on numerous occasions- he was too busy with Monica, and Jennifer and God knows who else to take him. He might have "offended" someone or hurt their little feelings.

Just WHAT self- interest has GW realized from going to Iraq? It hasn't been that great for him politically- and no matter how you THINK he is- I cannot believe that ANY human being would find making the decisions he's made easy ones to come to grips with.

I constantly hear the Liberals and John Kerry whine about what is wrong; and what GW did or didn't do (depending on which day of the week it is, and which Clintonite is feeding John his lines on a given day), but I hear very little SPECIFICALLY about what would SOLVE the problem.

So we went to Iraq, and lo and behold, some of the SAME people are there, and have BEEN there, creating terror and associating with Saddam and his charming sons. But you would have us believe that GW concocted all this for ..... gee, I don't think I caught any specfic reasoning here. But then, we NEVER hear specifics from your side, just a lot of complaining. NOthing POSITIVE ever seems to get said.

I heard Kerry today. The day AFTER he insulted several other world leaders. (Great way to build those alliances he's always bleating about). He showed DISRESPECT for Mr. Allawi, who takes his life in his hands everytime he steps into public. He has CONSISTENTLY been disrespectful to a sitting, WARTIME president, and our troops- One of whom is my son.

I hear a lot of whining and moaning- but nothing but I'll do better. Oh really??? HOW. By showing the world we're cowards and pulling out of Iraq? What do we do then? Sit HERE and wait for them to come for us.... AND THEY WILL. Is that what you want for yourself and your family? Meanwhile of course, he can spend the TRILLIONS he's proposing of letting all of us who work, support all of those who don't! And NOW Bush is also responsible (singlehandedly) for global warming AND the hurricanes. Probably so he could engineer a good photo-op helping the victims... right?

No thanks. I cannot stand a weak man- and Kerry personifies weak. He can't hold an opinion for more than an hour- and to form one, he needs to take a POLL and then ask the Clintonites if its ok. I'll stick with GW and if you REALLY look at what's happening and the issues; you would too.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 24, 2004 10:32 AM

To AnArmyMom: Thank you, Thank you. I couldn't have said it better. I was also amazed to hear that our President was being blamed for the storms...
It's amazing that nowadays the way to win an election is to slander the other man's character, his wife, and family.. Did you hear the one about Mrs. Bush being on drugs...I'm so tired of it all.

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 24, 2004 10:45 AM

AnArmyMom- I hate to do this, but I think I have to disagree with you. I mean AntiBushCampaigning4Kerry is a complete idiot, but you can't honestly believe that Bush went to war to help Iraq, do you? You're right, Kerry is weak, but I don't think that either Kerry or Bush are going to make the whole situation in Iraq any better- Bush is too stubborn to admit he's wrong and needs help (although that UN speech was somewhat a cry for help), and Kerry is too chickensh*t to do anything at all. I think we need better candidates- even as a Democrat I would have picked McCain over Kerry. Back to Payback's question, what do we do from here? That's what we have to do, elect a leader that will move us in the right direction, not on that forces his ideas and ideology down the throats of his constituents and of the people of the world.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 24, 2004 10:57 AM


I like that idea…
the idea of America focusing its efforts (and especially its finances) on America. Yes.

If I remember, you said you are an educator. I wonder what your thoughts are on the issue of ignorance in the Middle East (generalizing here). Educationally speaking, much of that part of the world is a toxic waste site, and I don’t believe terrorists will ever stop bubbling to the surface as long as the Koran is their prevailing school textbook (again, generalizing… but you get the point). If we lock into a battle with all these terrorists, will it ever end…… until somehow we are able to promote or encourage a change in how they think of education? I heard on the radio earlier, I think it was a Palestinian teacher (a female), blew herself up for “Allah”… and the children. Unreal. Man, I really don’t want to see America get into an Israeli/Palestinian thing… there’s no future in it-- it just…..never…..ends.

I think of the emotion upsetandoutraged puts behind these terrorists and there’s no way I can disagree (nor would I want to). But to just stop… and think about it for a minute: the complete primal human depravity of it. Things I never thought I’d see being done, by a so-called ‘human being’ terrorist that makes me ashamed to be a member of the human race. Makes me want to see them get ‘Medievaled’ on. But then, ultimately I can’t help but realize the only permanent solution lay in the hope of education. But we got some killing to do first*

Ok…. Did I stray…?

*Just read your latest... good for you!

Posted by: payback! on September 24, 2004 11:00 AM

payback- I think that the education standards in the Middle East are unfortunate, and although my next statement may fuel the fire for some of you out there, I think it's a good indication of what could happen here if Bush continues to try to break down that wall of church and state. Now I don't mean that America will ever go to the extreme of the Middle East, but they're religion is so mixed into their culture that there is no escaping it. And I don't know if there is a solution, or at least one in the near future.

What conservative Muslims (and Christian fundamentalists) need to realize is that this is such a different world from 35 A.D. Without getting into a huge religon debate (or is that too late), religion is - dare I say - outdated. Why is it that through history certain leaders have been able to make changes to religion (King Henry and divorce, the Vatican and their penances, etc.), yet there haven't been any modifications in a while.

I'm getting off the subject, but what I'm trying to say is that unfortunately Muslim education in the Middle East is "stuck" being religion-based. This isn't necessarily a bad thing to them, but it's uncomfortable to the Western world where we've advanced in our thinking about civil rights (although how much have we really advanced when minorities are still being discriminated again) and equal rights for men and women (ha- another joke in some people's minds).

I don't seem to be getting anywhere. It all goes back to tolerance. If we educate ourselves about Muslim and Middle Eastern culture and show that as a nation we can recognize and maybe agree to disagree, perhaps some day we can prove that modern times call for religion reform. Yeah, I said it- religion reform. And from there we can improve education and quality of life.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 24, 2004 11:38 AM


Religion. Yeah, I intentionally stayed off that subject because I see a lot of people in here are ‘praying’ and what not. Hell, even ole’ tj said he’d pray for ME! But since you brought it up… I personally find religion to be frightening, and dare I say, dangerous. I mean, let’s face it, historically speaking, shake the ole’ ‘death and atrocity’ tree and most the world’s great religions will come falling out. Beyond that, look it over and you see religion has consistently resisted most of the major modern scientific advances of our time, and times past. Hey, I’ve seen it do a lot of people some real good too (so take it easy folks). But you’re right; religion and politics should never mix. Ever.

“agree to disagree”
Live and let live and all that? What a concept. That’s some radical thinking reasonable_wit. We’ll be lucky to see it in our lifetime, but not at all a bad thing to visualize. The difficult task is to get the Muslim fundamentalist world to ease in the “tolerance” direction. I’m not sure how that would be done.

-Thanks for the comments reasonable_wit:

**No offense meant to any religious folks out there, just my own (misguided if like) personal viewpoint. I have plenty of good friends who are also, ‘religious’, in one way or another.

A good weekend to all……….

Posted by: payback! on September 24, 2004 01:26 PM

hey fuck nuts that think CLINTON is the best thing sliced bread....here's a newsflash....if it wasn't for that perverted fuck that can't keep his dick in his pants whenever he gets excited by fat chicks......if it wasn't for him and his croonies cutting the defense budget as half ass as they did; so they could brag about no more deficit; then 9-11 wouldn't be an issue, we wouldn't be forced to defend ourselves in Iraq, and we wouldn't be made to look over our shoulders each time we want to leave this great country.....eat another Big Mac Clinton you idiot!

Posted by: knowgoal on September 24, 2004 11:32 PM


Posted by: knowgoal on September 24, 2004 11:37 PM

Knowgoal- it's ignorant Americans like you who make American look bad. First of all, stop shouting and turn off your caps lock key.

What good is a leader who stand by his decisions if his decisions put the lives of Americans in danger? Your guy put us there in the first place, remember? And he lied about why, remember that?

None of that is true. Kerry supports civil unions, not marriages, he has never taken a stance on the Pledge of Allegiance as far as I can recall, and he realizes that we have to finish what Bush started.

Not that Kerry is the best solution. I agree we need a better leader, a better candidate than the two fools we have to choose from.

Keep your red-neck antics to yourself- it makes the other Americans look like the white trash you're made up of.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 25, 2004 08:10 AM

[quote][i]Originally quoted by knowgoal[/i]
[b]hey fuck nuts that think CLINTON is the best thing sliced bread....here's a newsflash....if it wasn't for that perverted fuck that can't keep his dick in his pants whenever he gets excited by fat chicks..[/b][/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! You da man!!!!

Posted by: Missy on September 25, 2004 12:06 PM

Now Reasonable, don't get your back up. Knowgoal in a very simple way, has pointed out some of the glaring differences between the parties. A little salty certainly, but succinct.

And as for me, I don't know what Bush went to Iraq for, but I think AMERICA backs the decision because it was the right thing to do. He, as our representative, took us there, for better or worse, and now we need to finish. I DO think it's time we just "do it" and get it over with.

I would be terrified if Kerry somehow slimes his way into office. After all, you can't change your mind everyday and survive. Bush may be stubborn (if that's how you like to think of it), I prefer to think that he is a man of conviction, who stands by what he believes in. But either way, I'd rather have someone who at least is predictable, instead of a seemingly dual (or triple) personality who changes with the wind.

And then there's MRS Kerry. Good grief, the woman is like a mental patient that they lead around, while Laura is the epitome of class and elegance. What an apalling thought that THK could possibly be first lady. She actually told Reader's Digest she'd rather be White House Dog...
how appropriate. All three of mine are smarter than her... hmmmmm.

Have a good weekend.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 25, 2004 05:53 PM






Posted by: knowgoal on September 25, 2004 07:59 PM

Simple , take a hike out of IRaq america , and you'll stay in one piece .


Posted by: hitman on September 26, 2004 05:06 AM

knowgoal- you really are a piece of work. First of all don't cry to me that you have to pick up the pieces and support your children if you earn $112,000.00 a year. I'm sure you can "maintain a decent living"- shit, I maintain a decent living on MUCH less than that. And I am sorry to hear about yor husband, if that really is true (I'm a bit skeptical). I pray to my God for your family's tragedy, however I would think that you of all people would question Bush's intentions. Remember, it wasn't Iraq or Saddam that killed your husband. Or maybe you forgot that. You know, why don't you take part of that $112,000.00 that you make annualy, buy a good quality radio (better than I can afford), and do some research yourself.

While you're at it, maybe you should take a look at some of my previous posts and see what it is I support- because you accuse me of things that I DON'T believe in. You sound an awful lot like that president you cherish. Jumping the gun. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.

And it's not your dedication to your children or your patriotism (if you can call it that) that make you white trash- it's the way you carry yourself, the way you speak to people, your apparent racism and prejudice against anyone that isn't white, heterosexual, and American. It's a blessing that your children live in a country of democracy, oppurtunity and diversity. It's a shame, however, that they must grow up in a household of hatred and ingnorance. Hateful and ingnorant, much like the Al Qaeda assh*les who are beheading people left and right. Don't bring yourself to their level.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 26, 2004 10:03 AM

Kerry is so fairy!! You can't go wrong with dick and Bush!! My brother has been there... YOU WANT THE MEN THAT BELLIEVE IN CUTTING A MANS HEAD OFF , SICK BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!! I PRAY THEY ALLGO TO HELL,
you want them in the US??? you asswholes .killing our parents, g-parents -children .loved ones sick together and it read the Bible!! ..
I hope we bomb the fuck out of all of them, take care of our own... Bush does not talk in circles ..
like Kerry... and his f-in ketchup family...

Posted by: sister on September 26, 2004 12:29 PM

I say eye for an eye. We should have released their women from prison, beheaded them and tossed them out in the street just as they did. These are not a race of human beings we are dealing with, but rather a waste of walking breath. It urks me to know that our government provides these filthy useless savages with funds and loans to start businesses and live in our country, while so many veterans who fought for this country remain homeless and without. The only bad thing about America is that we take care of everyone else before our own. If I walk into a store and see one of those filthy savages behind the counter, I simply walk out, as I refuse to give them my money. If we all stopped giving business to them, they will fail.These people come to America and try to chane it to their belief's. We should only allow them visa's to come and visit, and stop allowing them to buy a piece of American soil so they can produce and spread their evil. I say kill them all and let their precious Allah sort them out.

Posted by: Marie on September 26, 2004 05:47 PM

ummm..........hey reasonable last time I will bother to respond to your nonsense........my children would have been taught to love everyone just as they love themselves; however the world we live in no longer allows that and its peoeple like you that prove my point.....I don't care whether or not you choose to believe me regarding my 9/11 loss; I do care that you realize I started at $000.00 after losing my husband; we didn't request any money from the governemtn and we didn't sue like so many others did; which is a decision they are entitled to make on their own.....I had to work my way up the ladder in the workplace while trying to pick up the pieces from what was left behind.....Also, I understand you may not be well educated regarding cost of living but where we live $112,000.00 a year with kids isn't a whole heck of a lot considering we went from triple that when my husband was alive.....maybe you should take that paycheck of yours and see how far you will get in mid-Manhattan! You can define white-trash anyway you want and frankly, as stated earlier, I am proud to be it! I do not want my kids growing up to a freak show because they are straight and everyone around them is gay, married, with children.....if I am racist because I think gays should not be married and given same sex rights; then I am proud to be racist as well.....I don't care what color your skin is; if you chop off heads I hate you, so once again I am racist then....and I never said I "cherish" Bush......read you illerate fuck, I said neither of them are fanatsic but when faced with the choice I pick Bush.......Kerry is SCARY.......and you love the guy so much why not help run his campaign. Enough said!

Posted by: knowgoal on September 26, 2004 07:59 PM

Knowgoal, since that was your last response, then I guess I have the last word, eh?

Get over yourself, first of all. Really, the whole $112,000 a year is not enough to raise your children with is complete b.s. My mother raised 4 children on not much more than $45,000 a year, and I'm sure that we've been brought up more cultured than anyone in your family. She truly taught us to "love everyone just as they love themselves" (wow, really not much of a quoter, are you)- it is possible in this world. It only requires tolerance, a quality you obviously lack. The fact that you admit to being a racist in my opinion is grounds enough to have your children taken away from you. And you live in New York City? God, you must be miserable, having to walk around with all those multicultural people and bearing witness to all creeds of life. I think you're in the wrong city, honey. Sounds like you belong in Dallas or Montgomery where it's a little less diverse.

You know, let's stick to the issues. The issue is that Americans like you (thank goodness not ALL Americans) continue to pass on racism and prejudice to the younger generations, and that's plain selfish. How will we ever live in a world of peace if we continuously go back and forth insulting and hating "them." At some point someone's going to have to be the bigger man [or woman] and put a stop to this. What your ingorant minds don't realize is that the terrorists make up a very minute percentage of the Muslim and Middle Eastern community, yet we penalize anyone from that part of the world. Open your minds, people, it's not that simple. You are all a bunch of Nazis, and you are all guilty of genocide. Where's our culture? What has the US brought to the world besides war, capitalism, corrupt democracy, and The Fabulous Life of Britney Spears? Middle Eastern culture is rich with history, substantial history. You should read up on it, it's quite fascinating.

I really wish that I could get through to you people, open up your minds and educate you. I guess that old saying is true, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Drink, people, drink!!

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 27, 2004 05:38 AM

Reasonable wit: Why do you keep accusing President Bush as a Liar? I'm sick of all your accusations towards President Bush with no proof. The 911 commission did not say he lied. Also, Russia, France, Germany and even the King of Jordan said Sadam had WMDs. Even John Kerry said so... President Bush didn't Lie, he was mislead just like everyone else and he wasn't going to take any chances. If a president is getting intelligence about a tirrant country who has defied the UN, who has used WMDs, who’s a mass murderer etc., then it’s his job to do what’s best for the American people. The president doesn’t make decisions according to the polls but according to his judgment. So, please stop telling lies on this blog and speak the truth. You can put me down all you want...because you come accross as a person who feels you are better than everyone else (alway correcting everyone's gramma), but I'll stay strong and stand by our President.

Posted by: UpsetandOutraged on September 27, 2004 10:21 AM

Wow, things have really heated up in here the last day or so.

Knowgoal- I'm sorry for your loss, but hating won't get it done. I started over in my life too, with no income and a child to raise. But it you can't teach your children to love others in this world, then what do you have to offer them as a parent? Children pick up on emotions- if you are projecting the anger and hatred you exhibit here, even just a little, your children are going to become part of the problem, not the solution.

Reasonable- Could you please point to some specifics where you think the President lied? The security he recieved was WORLDWIDE security- the UN based 14 (useless) resolutions on the existence of WMD's and Saddam sure didn't spray the Kurds with RAID. He USED the poison gas to kill men women and children. If that's not a WMD then I don't know what is.

My guess is that he smuggled much of his technology out of the country- probably to Iran- before our invasion. I think he thought he'd live to fight another day. Meanwhile Iran floods Iraq with bloodthirsty terrorists as does Syria and Jordan.

I am appalled overall, to see the prejudicial thoughts and generalizations made in many of these posts. It saddens me to hear people make such statements about fellow human beings because they are different. Its what America is founded on. And please remember that America is about ADVANCED citizenship. It means ALLOWING another to yell at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime refuting. THAT is democracy. You don't have to agree with it, you need to ALLOW it to be said.

THE WORLD, not just America is faced with a VICIOUS opponent at this time. The enemy is a group of EXTREMISTS. We must not splinter into hundreds of small factions fighting each other. If there is one thing on which everyone here can agree it is that what they are doing and have done, is WRONG. Killing of innocents is WRONG.

America DID NOT cause this. We have done our duty throughout the world- financially and militarily. Those are facts. Sometimes I feel like "why do we bother" when even some of our own people want to list us as the PROBLEM instead of part of the solution.

Are we always right? Of course not. We're human. But, since we have the most in the world, we try to share the wealth- helping those NOT as fortunate. No matter where disaster occurs, we are there to help. NO ONE EVER shows up to help US. I don't recall any help after 911, and right now, our aid departments are all stretched to the limit in Florida. But no one offers help. The UN sits on its bureaucratic ass waiting for the US to straighten out the Sudan- meanwhile THOUSANDS die... but they sure wouldn't want to send THEIR soldiers in.

Its discouraging yes. But there IS good in the world. Don't let the newscasts convince you that there is NOTHING good happening in Iraq. There ARE people there who WANT the freedom, and appreciate the sacrifices. And even if they DON'T, the RIGHT thing is to go on giving our help.

Please everyone- state your opinions- but let the personal attacks and racial slurs alone. They don't assist in intellectual discourse, and they're so unkind.

Be kind to people you meet- you'll be amazed where it gets you.

Posted by: An Army Mom on September 27, 2004 11:32 AM

This is a terible act against american people, let
send Pres.Bush over to fight his war and we'll see just how quickly it will end. vote democrat all the way to stop the american's from being killed. Lets get Bush out the office and home to Texas where he belongs. Kerry for Pres.(04), and the first women to be Pres. in (08). peace and love to everyone

Posted by: kmitch on September 27, 2004 05:18 PM

This is a terrible act against american people, let send Pres.Bush over to fight his war and we'll see just how quickly it will end. Vote democrat all the way to stop the american's from being killed. Lets get Bush out the office and home to Texas where he belongs. Kerry for Pres.(04), and the first women to be Pres. in (08). peace and love to everyone

Posted by: kmitch on September 27, 2004 05:19 PM

Marie, your comments make so much sense to me, and I hear you. I have been haunted with the horrer of Jack Hensley's and Eugene "Jack" Armstrong's and the others unimaginable deaths. It took me probably 15 times of trying to complete Mr. Hensley's horrific death. I needed to see it so I could properly pray for his suffering. God be with him and I know he is. I truly belive and know beyond a doubt that Mr. Hensley suffers no more! However, I have been haunted ever since of the visions! I can't believe that "human nature" could actually be sooooo evil. And I can not believe that they are human! I can't imagine another human being having to suffer such an awful death! Let alone being the one with the knife. I pray for the man with the knife because deep in his mind, even if he doesn't want to ackowledge it, he too feels like scum and knows what he has done! And that fact alone, will eat at his soul! And therefore he is "truly dead"! God promises that! And I would hate to have that on my soul! Someone commented about the American's hanging "blacks" in the sixties. That was a sick group called "KKK". Because America is what it is, KKK is no longer what it was, and they are considered scum as well! Even though hanging was used in alot of countrie's judicial systems! Because it was quick and painless! Regardless, it doesn't even compare to what these men suffered! God rest their precious souls, bless their families with peace of mind and may this world get it's SHIT together!

Posted by: Mom on September 27, 2004 07:14 PM


I appreciate your response but thank you for leaving my children out of this....they were never meant to be apart of these postings....I was simply stating my intense dissatisfaction with "reasonable wit" postings. I am a wonderful mother and thank you for your concern and preaching to me, I really don't need it. Did you lose your husband as well do to terrorism? If so then I will graciously shut the hell up, otherwise I have MORE than earned my right to bitch, gripe, and whatever the fuck I want to do.....................THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KIDS, PRESIDENTIAL BULLSHIT, WHO IS VOTING FOR WHO, ETC. ETC. ETC. AND HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM AND THESE FUCKS THAT ARE THE PERPETRATORS.........AGAIN I SAY NUKE THE TOWEL HEAD SAND NIGGERS!!!!!!

Posted by: knowgoal on September 27, 2004 07:32 PM

how can you "appreciate" AnArmyMom's words if you didn't even listen to what she said?

An Army Mom, I TRULY appreciate your words. Althout we may disagree with certain issues, it seems that we agree that racism and prejudice do not belong in our county. I apologize to anyone I may have offended, even you knowgoal. I just pray that some day we ALL can move past this and live in a country of TRUE and ABSOLUTE tolerance.

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 28, 2004 04:22 AM

Any reasonable person reading through this entire thread would swiftly conclude that EVERYONE in here hates the terrorists and would like to see them annihilated! At issue, really, is who best to lead us forward into a world increasingly soiled by these individuals and their twisted ideologies; all the while advancing global respect and esteem for America as the truly greatest Democratic nation the world has ever seen.
Knowgoal seemed primarily concerned with being acknowledged for her financial achievements following 9/11 (which are impressive given her difficult circumstances). Have to give her that, she’s earned it. What is more telling is her statement indicating she is more concerned you believe her about the details of her financial standing than she is about the loss of her husband during the 9/11 attacks. Odd, I thought. Whatever. More disturbing, however, is her willingness to freely align herself with racists, gay bashers, and ‘god’ only knows what other sundry bigots. Noting the intensity with which she hammers out her hatred on the keyboard reveals insight into what lies in her true core, even IF coaxed by her loss. But I have to say, after reading it, if her husband DIDN’T succumb during 9/11, he is without a doubt……. HIDING!

Posted by: payback! on September 28, 2004 09:28 AM

Payback, that was spoken like a man with experience in relationships! LOL... I showed my husband what you said and he chuckled too.

I am sorry that Knowgoal is SO angry at the world.It sounds like she's tossed in the towel- even as she is up walking around and earning her living. I respect the effort that takes daily- I've been there. The circumstances were different certainly, I didn't lose my husband to terrorism, but the monotony of getting out of bed everyday and wondering HOW I would take care of everything is the same.

So even as we feel for someone in Know's position, should we not also think how the Iraqi people as a whole must feel- we are terrorized THOUSANDS of miles away by these perverts- so how must THEY feel, walking the same streets with them?

I agree with you that we have all digressed away from the TRUE issue at hand- WHO best to lead us through the next four years? I maintain that President Bush is the most logical of the two. Not only do I like HIM, I appreciate the competent staff he surrounds himself with. Is he PERFECT, and do I agree with EVERYTHING he does? No. But I think he'll LISTEN to the people.

Kerry is SO obsessed with gaining personal power, that he changes sides every five minutes. I really think GW was right- Kerry could just debate himself for the 90 minutes and let GW watch! After all Kerry has boxed himself in beautifully. He can't open his mouth to say ANYTHING without contradicting himself with things he's said in the fairly recent past. Its pathetic.

I SURE don't want MY son's safety riding on that clown! And I don't know what you thought of the SwiftVets, but I find it hard to believe that 250 guys just got together amd MADE all those stories up! Although I don't care about his medals and all that- I DO think what they said goes to his BASIC character (or LACK thereof) And I DON'T want a president who LACKS basic ethics, as he obviously did to his shipmates and later, as he consorted with the ENEMY in Paris. They've kept quiet all these years, content to live and let live until Kerry lined himself up (as one of them put it) "to put my son and grandon in harm's way" and that they WILL NOT allow. And frankly, I feel the same way. So I will go forward with GW at least he knows what he's doing.

I think the media has colored MUCH of the campaign with their own agenda. GW has a lot of faith that guides him- but I don't see him trying to ram that down anyones throat. But he's not afraid to say that that is part of his personal strength. It seems to me that he is a moral man- with personal ethics and is willing to allow others to be themselves - unless it threatens US. And then he takes action. Kerry talks about "talking"... who's he going to talk TO??? He speaks of building alliances, but certainly went out of his way to be RUDE to PM Allawi last week. And does anyone hear HONESTLY think that TALKING with the Zarqawi and his gang will work???
France said they don't care WHO is in the White House- they want no part of any of it (could it be because of the pay-offs they took from Saddam?) The UN is laying low- critical as always, but equally lacking in action. Could it be THEY are laying low (becuase of the payoffs THEY took from Iraq???) gee, could there be a pattern here??? Lets see, Putin's group SOLD Iraq arms....hmmmm...

Funny the Mainstream media hasn't covered any of this too intensely.... I guess that's why Dan had to "make" his own news ...huh?

Posted by: AnArmyMom on September 28, 2004 04:38 PM

I beg you all to stop this now it could be my son there some day, it could be any number of sons or daughters. But what is worse they are paying people to come there to do paper work and teaching them hand to hand combat so they may too loose there heads. It is not safe a hotel full of American's they are sitting ducks for future examples of how the can take lives at will. It is time to do something. The lunacy will never stop you can arrest, hunt down and kill their leaders and like cockroachers they arrive back again like varmin. These people don't care about anything or won't stop to save one of their own in the street during a raid. I for one am ashamed of my USA our Leaders have all said we are not going to put up with this September 11, and look at the killings since then. We have better technical support I agree get our people out of there and put a stop to it once and for all. God bless the families of those taken, in this war that was not ours. I will pray for you and those effected by suce gross neglagence.

Posted by: Trish on September 28, 2004 11:24 PM


So Tony Blair has prayed in church for Ken Bigley: do we take it he has also prayed for the souls of the the tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed in the war, and for those still to die?
Mr Blair is, in Jungian terms, identified with the hero archetype. He is a Siegfried conquering the evil dragon in the hope of finding the treasure of a re-ordered world made to his black and white Manichean ideals. Jung stated that whenever anyone is identified with a archetype, he is driven to its fatal goal. Behind the hubris of the hero lies his shadow, which kills him. We must assume that nemesis awaits Mr Blair as his hubristic heroic ideals carry him to their fate. The collapse of electoral support for him is just beginning.

Posted by: paul on September 29, 2004 01:36 PM

Thanks for getting the humor there in my closing remarks… (got to have a little humor about this stuff too, right?)
BTW: Your posts always strike me as some of the more thoughtful ones in this thread.

I too, feel that Know’s situation is unfortunate. Carrying around extreme negativity and anger always takes the greatest toll on the individual who embraces them…… particularly over the long term.

When it comes to Bush, I don’t doubt his convictions or his willingness to act, and I don’t dislike him personally, but I do doubt his judgment and his approach as he advocates for America on the world stage. There was genuine opportunity in the air following 9/11. The message to us from the greater part of the world following those horrific events was predominantly, “we are all Americans!” No one really batted an eye when we went into Afghanistan (even now, when little or no control exists much beyond Kobul). It was the right thing to do… Al Qaeda was there and the Taliban was unwilling to cough them up: 100% justified! But was America able to capitalize on the world’s sentiment in the days prior to and following Afghanistan? Since Iraq, what has become the new prevailing world attitude toward America? Bush is a great ass-kicker, and I like that about him too, but does that ALWAYS serve America’s best interests? Is kicking-ass all that’s required to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are indeed the finest example of what a “great nation” can be? In these terms, what did it cost us to begin the war when we did? I think a ‘big stick’ and the willingness to use it is more credible and respected when accompanied by exceptional foreign affairs skills. Of course, your point is well taken; corruption and allied (financial) entanglements with dubious nations are definitely major obstacles. Still, America must try to strike some sort of balance between preserving beneficial global relationships, and the actions it uses in dealing with those it perceives as security threats, especially when those threats fall short of ‘immanent’. For whatever it’s worth, it does not seem that Iraq lived up to the ‘immanent’ threat it was initially thought to be. Iraq’s strategic intentions are another matter, and I don’t disagree that Hussein’s eventual demise would have probably been inevitable anyway. But could that goal have been achieved while at the same time preserving more respect and credibility for America? Depends on how you look at things I guess.

Swift Boat Vets? I don’t put much stock in them or the issue of the two candidate’s military records. Did Kerry embellish? Most certainly. This was proved by a well respected investigative reporter (I can’t think of his name right now), but the report also shows that all those serving with Kerry directly (on his boat/arm-to-arm if you will) agreed with the military’s own records regarding the award of those medals. The man served his country while in harms way, and I thank him for that. Did Bush have great family connections? Sure. Again, the man served his country, and I thank him for that. Both are worthy of respect.

And you are right about mainstream media… most of it is ‘entertainment’ news at best.
O.k., I’ve gone on way to long here…

P.S. this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of J. Kerry


Posted by: payback! on September 29, 2004 02:13 PM


Posted by: knowgoal on September 29, 2004 10:08 PM


Posted by: knowgoal on September 29, 2004 10:10 PM

Holy fuck! That video was triple fucked! Can't those fucktards fucking kill that guy faster. Those guys fucking suck at killing. Kill faster less pain! I recommend an axe or bullet. Fucking guys doesn't know how to kill. If you want to kill someone do it in one sweep. I fucking say fucking nuke the middle east. These fucking dumbass.

Posted by: Dude on September 29, 2004 10:19 PM

Oh Knowgoal...... there you go again...
It almost got lonely in here without you going off. Welcome back. Now listen, we are pretty funny it's true, but don't short change your own capacity for humor. Your opening line about "I THOUGHT WE COULD OPENLY POST COMMENTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE COULD RESPOND RESPECTFULLY"... now that had me rolling. I like you, you're good... "fuck this, fuck that, towel head this and nuke that, hey listen fucker this 'n' that" on and on..... but yeah, let's "respond respectfully." You kill me... stop, seriously.. my ribs... I'm dying over here... LOL

Oh the Knowgoal... please, seek help.
Or maybe I could round up AnArmyMom, Wit and myself and we could come and do an intervention. Then we'll all have a beer!

Posted by: payback! on September 30, 2004 06:54 AM

I am completely convinced that you are a twelve-year-old. I mean, really.

What the hell are you talking about with the health insurance thing? What does that have to do with being gay? You don't think heterosexual people marry for benefit purposes only? This is completely off track, but I figured since you brought it up...

payback- I think you put it better than I could have. Bush is a great ass-kicker, you're right, but who wants to be friends with the bully? Usually the bully is the bully because he's too pigheaded and close-minded to open up to a community. That's what Bush is going for, in my opinion, a close-minded democracy. Can't work. Just like his compassionate conservatism. Blew up in his face.

Excited to watch the debates tonight, although they really aren't "debates." The rules the candidates have agreed upon makes this the lamest debate since 1960's Great Debate between Nixon & Kennedy. But it should be interesting to watch, in my trailer, next to payback and AnArmyMom. Hey, maybe we'll watch it all together, drinking our Bud, sportin' our trucker caps, sweat-stained wife-beaters and socks & flip-flops*.

*knowgoal, in case that went over your head, it was a joke (pronounced: jŌk). It's nice to know that after your loss on 9/11 that you've been humbled (that's sarcasm: SAHR-ca-zim)

Posted by: reasonable_wit on September 30, 2004 07:16 AM


I mean, go ahead, BE the bad-ass, but don’t have a “strut.” People sort of automatically have to hate an ass-kicker who struts. Pretty sure they even have a ‘resolution’ on that somewhere. And here comes Bush the other day on the international world stage publicly proclaiming that Iran “will NOT have nuclear weapons.” Again, it’s the APPROACH…
here’s America tellin’ folks just how it’s gonna be. In Texas, “we don’t call it strutin’ , we call it walking.”

Yeah, I’m looking forward to the debates too, lame as they try to make them with all the pitiful rules. I wish they would just really let those guys go at it and see what happens. I even hear Bush is supposed to be pretty good at this…. often underestimated. Should be interesting. And heck yeah, see ya at yer trailer. I’ll bring over my set of mason jars so we’ll have somthin’ to sip our Bud and Pabst Blue Ribbon out of. ArmyMom says she’ll come too so long as you promise to peel back those bed sheets you’re using for curtains and let her gaze out those windows with their hole filled screens, across the dead and spent-tire filled yard, so as she can watch that beautiful sun setting gently behind the high voltage lines where you’ve delicately hung your impressive collection of shoelace-tied footwear mobiles.

C’mon Knowgoal, peel yourself outta the ‘Lazy Boy’ and join us on the ‘dark side’ of the trailer park where we’ll be engaging in such heresies as “tolerance”, and the judgment of folks based on the quality of their character instead of on their sexual orientation or their skin color. Hell, it’s goin’ to be a regular trailer park frolic.

Posted by: payback! on September 30, 2004 12:26 PM

Bush's war is barking up the wrong tree. His reasons for it changed, and even then he has egg on his face.
Anyway, if it wasnt for this war, there wouldn't be these beheadings. The prisoner abuse was fuel for a fire. Fuck meddling with the politics of iraq. Hell they still hates us, some more for our "liberation". I'd like to see the fucks bomb, only problem is that would piss off most the rest of the world. Might even lead to a ww3. Maybe best idea is to pull out, and let nature take it's course. Let them be midevil on themselves. Say, sorry, we tried. As of now we still have our probs, and theirs" Brilliant.

Btw. Bush is the dumbest, and worse pres we have ever had. Only a little short of hitler. If he is voted for again, say hello to a draft, and more wars with other countries ontop of having more terrorists attacks. He needs out just for the simple statement to the war that he is a screw up and we know it. Lessen our enemies tenfold right there.

Posted by: Wookie on October 2, 2004 09:01 AM


The killing of at least 35 Iraqi children, and the maiming of many more, by two car bombs as they gathered to celebrate the opening of a new sewage plant in Baghdad, was one of the most grotesque acts of barbarism since the start of the terrorist insurgency. The grief reflect the general frustration and anger at the violence that in this month alone has killed at least 580 Iraqis-an anger that has sometimes been directed at the coalition forces but which ought to be turned on those militants, many from outside Iraq, whose actions are intended to cause as much bloodshed, destruction and chaos as possible.
The violence is not mindless, however. The aim of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is planning most of the bombing and kidnappings and who has personally murdered several Western hostages, is to make Iraq ungovernable, plunge it into an endless cycle of death and derail the elections. By this logic, the more brutal the killings, the more innocent the victims, the more Iraqis will be demoralised and intimidated by the immoral minority who are leading the "resistance" to occupation.
There was something perculiarly abhorrent, almost sadistic, about the attacks on a water pumping station. Throughout the Middle East, water is a symbol for its life-giving purity, coolness and spritual refreshment. Proper drainage in poor districs had for years been neglected by Saddam; war damage to power supplies and pumping stations exacerbated the threat of disease from contaminated water.
The ceremony held in a slum district of Baghdad was to celebrate the refurbishment by local contractors, with US support, of a sewage plant, looted after the fall of Saddam, that would make a vital difference to life in the neighbourhood. Whether or not Zarqawi and al-Qaeda knew that children would be there, the bombing was an outrage that reveals the full depravity of the terrorists targeting Iraqis and sabotaging their hopes for the future.
Gauging the despairing mood of the Iraqis is becoming ever more difficult. Honest eye-witness reporting is virtually impossible, so great is the is the threat to all Western and Arab journalists. But the attempt to use this latest incident as evidence of rising popular anger at the coalition is as tendentious as it is self-serving. Iraqis do want to take charge of their own destiny. But they do not want the coalition troops to leave in a rush. They do not want to see their country surrendered to terrorism and anarchy, their freedom hijacked by zealots or their recovery sacrificed to ethnic violence. Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi Prime Minister, insists elections will still be held January. Every effort must be made to thwart the terrorists' obscene attemps to sabotage them and the country.

Posted by: paul on October 2, 2004 12:48 PM

Yeah Paul there is an entry on that event at:

Truly horrible.

Posted by: Digger on October 2, 2004 12:57 PM

To Payback and ReasonableWit: I WAITED and waited with some Bud on Ice for you both to show up at my trailer to watch the debates! I guess it was better at the local honky-tonk huh?

and to you, Knowgoal: Frankly speaking, I am ashamed FOR you that you are as predjudiced as you are, so very bitter. Normally, I would feel sorry for someone like you, but you CHOOSE to be that way, so have at it. I'm rather certain that your thought processes are not MUCH different from those you condemn so heartily- Zarqawi and his crowd no doubt sit around tossing racial slurs and epithets at us, similar to the ones you spout so easily. Sometime, just for fun, you should try doing a post WITHOUT profanity. It would certainly shorten things for you.

You sound like a very intelligent, thoughtful person. I agree with you that Zarqawi, by raising the stakes and making each incident more horrific than the last, hopes to demoralize Iraqis into reverting to their former subservient way of life. But they MUST not be allowed to believe that giving in will bring them peace- anymore than Americans must allow a similar line of thinking to invade.

It would be foolish to think that these vicious predators would simply melt away IF they are given their way. They will NEVER stop hating us, and where there is so much hate, there is the need to inflict damage and pain- as they have shown.

They've never encountered an adversary like America who simply WILL NOT GIVE IN, and continues to thwart them on a daily basis. And for YEARS we have not had an administration who demonstrated such strength of will, UNTIL GW.

THings will continue to escalate, the closer it gets to ours and Iraq's elections- but to show ANY weakness now, will only make things WORSE.

My only son BELIEVES enough in this country to put on its uniform and fight- and many, many young men and women with him. I think that says it all.

Posted by: An Army Mom on October 4, 2004 01:27 PM

An Army Mom, thank you for your last response.


At first glance the violence in Jabaliya in Palestine and in the Iraqi town of Samarra appear to be unconnected. The Israeli army's incursion into the northern Gaza looks like just another deadeningly familiar episode in the unending conflict between Palestinians and Jews.
The US-led weekend assault on insurgents in mainly Sunni Samarra seems to be broadly typical of the continuing turmoil in Iraq.
But peer beneath the headlines and it is clear that these ostensibly separate events are far from routine, and are closely linked in many ways, directly and indirectly.
In both Jabaliya and Samarra modern armies with state-of-the-art weaponry and unanswerable air power attacked residential areas, causing numerous civilian casualities. In both cases the degree of leathal force used was grossly disproportionate to the assessed threat. Three US and two Iraqi battalions-about 5,000 men-were sent against 200-300 insurgents in Samarra.
In Gaza, in order to deter the sort of vicious home-made Hamas rocket attacks that killed two children Israel last week, the Israelis have deployed an estimated 2,000 soldiers and 200 tanks, and are threatening an escalation.
In both places, enormous damage has been done to homes and infrastructure, including basic services. The Palestinians are appealing for international assistance for what they say is a developing "humanitarian tragedy".
The Iraqi Red Crescent, reporting that 500 families were forced to flee Samarra, said the Iraqi interim government had asked for emergency aid.
Present horrors apart, Jabaliya and Samarra both offer disturbing portents, and both have condiderable political significance.
In Gaza, Israel seems intent on establishing a buffer zone on Palestinian land, the equivalent of the wall with which it is enclosing the West Bank and which, despite official denials, is prospectively just as permanent.
This is linked in turn to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial unilateral plan to evacuate most of the Gaza Strip next year while consolidating Israel's grip on growing swaths of the West Bank.
The US attack on Samarra, a relatively easy target, appears to be a dress rehearsal for coming attemps to seize control of better defended insurgent strongholds such as Falluja, Sadr City and Ramadi.
On the success of this campaign rests, to a large degree, the Bush administration's strategy for creating a democratic post-Saddam Iraq. And thus are the personal political fortunes of Mr Sharon and the US president, George Bush, bound up to a critical degree in what happens in places such as Jabaliya and Samarra.
Both men are fighting to convince sceptical electorates, and their own parties, that they know what they are doing. When elected, Mr Sharon promised to achieve security for Israelis. Mr Bush declared victory in Iraq more than a year ago. Each man has a credibility gap. To fill it, it seems ongoing civilian carnage is not too high a price to pay.
Jabaliya and Samarra may also be seen as linked symbols of a bigger problem. In Iraq and Palestine, two allied occupying powers-and democracies, at that-act with questionable or no legal authority and with evident impunity.
Resolutions and protests from the UN are ignored. European and Arab governments wring their hands impotently. Tony Blair is reduced to hinting at better times to come. Yet the bald fact remains: the US and Israel behave the way they do because they can; there is simply nobody to stop them.
And just as Israel's unbending stance, favouring force over dialogue, threatens a spreading conflict, drawing in Syria and Lebanon, so does an aggressive US policy, confusing power and legitimacy, intensify the risk of an Iraqi fragmentation embroiling Iran, Turkey and other neighbours.
Jabaliya and Samarra, officially, are distinct theatres in the wider "war on terror". But far from being unconnected, to many in the Arab world they look dismayingly like integral parts of a western crusade against both Muslims and Islam in general, to which violent resistance is the only possible response.
On both sides of the divide this dread downward spiral creates a kind of unseeing rage to which all are held hostage: blind in Iraq, eyeless in Gaza.

Posted by: paul on October 5, 2004 10:09 AM

A sadistic strategy of kidnappers using technology to torture.

Barbarism is bad enough. When combined with sadism it becomes unbearable. This has been a few weeks of torture for Kenneth Bigley personally, his family, Tony Blair and the British public. The same is true of others held hostage in Iraq, their loved ones and their countries. This is also, alas, precisely what the kidnappers want. Through seizing a few, they believe they can torment and intimidate the many. They have ruthlessly exploited their power to end the life of Mr Bigley at any moment they choose. Having brutally and publicly murdered two American victims in swift succession, they decided to make the world wait for the fate of their last hostage. The past few weeks will have prompted many conflicting instincts in Britain. No one can fail to be moved by the plight of the Bigley family, or fail to understand their urgent desire to see anything done that might yet prevent his killing. Most people will, nevertheless, recognise the position that the British Government has taken and accept that to reward such savage behaviour would be to encourage it. It is a moral dilemma created by immoral terrorists.
These past few weeks should also have made certain matters clearer. The conflict in Iraq has never commanded a consensus here or the wider international theatre. It should be obvious now, however, that irrespective of past arguments neither Britain nor the US can afford to abandon Iraq to the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He and his associates were attacking the intrests of the civilsed world long before Saddam Hussein lost power in Bagdhad. Iraq has become their chosen battlefield. It is ours too. The notion that if coalition troops left Iraq, al-Zarqawi and his ilk would disappear is simply implausible. There should be a shared ethical conviction that those who snatch people of the streets and sever their heads to shock and terrify are not engaged in politics by other means. They have to be confronted and their capacity to inflict such harm ended.
It is also evident, though, that these are sophisticated as well as vile operators. They are orchestrating events to impose the maximum political damage and create as much confusion as possible. Beheadings have been timed to coincide both with diplomacy of Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, and also with the US election campaign. In this calculated strategy of manipulation, people and polotics are merely props.
A central feature of the strategy is the use of videos issued to television stations and scenes recorded for display on websites. If there is moral clarity about the nature of the terrorists in Iraq, then the debate about what should be shown is awkward.
Arabic television stations, most of which appear to be happy to act as propagandists for extremists, rarely attempt to put the kidnappings in any moral or broader political context.
Should a message that a terrified captive is forced to send his loved ones be censored? Does this change when it is an appeal aimed at a polotictian? At what point does reporting the facts become voyeurism? The questions are numerous, but one answer is clear. We must decide according to our principles and not dance to the depraved tune of the terrorist.

Posted by: paul on October 6, 2004 01:11 PM

Bravo Paul. A well thought out missive. It really is quite a coil isn't it. Rational people cannot comprehend the vileness of Zarqawi and his group, and he is expert at playing on the fears of the average people to whom is conduct IS terrorizing, because it is so warped.

I agree with you on how these two conflicts are connected, and how it must look to the Muslims. However, conventional tactics (diplomacy) have failed time and time again, and as you said to think that giving in will solve the problems, is too foolish to contemplate.

Rather, I think we are at a point now where we MUST win, by whatever force is necessary. Will there be collateral damage? Yes, unfortunately there will. But the committment has been made and must be followed through on. And in the end, the winner dictates the rules, and they will be the rules of democracy and freedom for the masses. Hopefully that end will justify the means. I pray it will.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on October 6, 2004 04:58 PM

An Army Mom, thank you once again for your insight. Here is another observasion from the past few days.


Donald Rumsfeld was at his laconic best at a New York thinktank on Monday when he said there was no "strong, hard evidence" linking al-Qaida to Iraq. But the statement still dropped like a bombshell. This was not one of the defence secretary's famous "unknown unknows", but a clear known, albeit unconvincingly qualified yesterday by a claim that he had been "regrettably misunderstood". Mr Rumsfeld is thankfully on his way out of the Pentagon, retiring after next month's presidential elections, whether or not George Bush beats John Kerry. But if his own career is ending, others, including Mr Bush, are likely to - and certainly should - suffer significant collateral damage from his admission.
The purported link between the fundemtalist Osama bin Laden and the secular Saddam Hussein was central to the US administration's case for war, though most experts always believed it was unlikely. Much was made of reports of a single meeting between Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, but exhaustive enquiries have produced no evidence for this. This is perhaps what Mr Rumsfeld meant when he spoke of the question having "migrated in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way".
Equally amazingly, the defence secretary quickly issued a sort of half-retraction, noting that he had in fact spoken of Bin Laden - Baghdad connection since September 2002 on the basis of information provided by the CIA. That sounded as if he was blaming the CIA for being wrong, as he did over intelligence it provided on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction for the war-the principal justification for the war. But whatever he meant, the backtracking Mr Rumsfeld did not sound remotely like a man defending the invasion of Iraq, even if, as he pointed out in his inimitably folksy way, Saddam Hussein's regime was not the "Little Sisters of the Poor".
It is quite true, as he recalled, that Iraq was on the US list countries supporting terrorism, but so, for that matter were Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya. It is emphatically not true that there was evidence linking it to Bin Laden or 9/11. This is worth restating now that both Mr Bush and Mr Blair are talking about fighting terrorism in Iraq. It is also worth restating because the president continues to make the connection, as he did in last week's keynote foreign policy debate against the Democratic challenger. "The enemy," Mr Bush said, "attacked us." Mr Kerry retorted: "Saddam Hussein didn't." Mr Rumsfeld, belatedly, seems to agree.

Posted by: paul on October 7, 2004 02:02 PM

I am fighting in our military! I have been for 15 years and I really did not know the true meaning of my job until 9-11. I don't agree with everything our president has done or the way in which it was accomplished, but I do know that we cannot give in, negotiate, or faulter from the stance the United States has taken in the fight of Terrorism. The war will never end! All 9-11 did was open our eyes and finally make "MOST" Americans realize that it can happen in our own back yard. The only way to minimize the effect the terrorist have in our own country is to fight them offensively. Please don't forget why we are in this war....Terrorism! Iraq is just a speed bump. Support your Military for the sake of YOUR FREEDOM.

Posted by: Under Oath on October 8, 2004 09:03 PM

I just watch the video of the beheading, this is out of control. I was in Iraq for 11 months and 10 days and beleive me we will never win the hearts and minds of these people, the Marines went over there with this mentality. I don't think we should pull out of Iraq because us the americans have spilled too much blood and this shouldn't be in vein, I think we should bomb the fuck out of all this little cities when they get out of control, and as far as the american civilians over in Iraq, HELLO! do they know that there is a war going on over there

Posted by: ARMYGuy on October 9, 2004 08:42 AM

I am a British Person with some interesting observations on the world although I realise most people commenting are American.

America is the dominant military and economic power in the world today and there is no doubt about that. I think America should be applauded for its limited use of its massive military might, so far it has been quite light handed compared with the provecation it has received ie 911..

Centuries ago when Britain was the world power we used to invade/attack countries whenever we wanted to. Indeed it was the British who invented concentration camps in the Boer War of 1900. Years ago we used to wipe out foreign people who we didn't agree with or like and nobody used to hear about it.

The issue today is the media. With 24 hour news it is impossible for any Government to implement a radical solution to a problem.. There would be too much of an outcry by the French and other nations !

One solution is to forget the middle east and their fucking oil. Lets develop a new form of fuel so we don't have to fund those major assholes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere !

I can understand how some seem to criticise the top dog ie.US but I think America is a good leader when compared to the rest..

I don't want to be an appear as an ASS licker ..

Posted by: Slackyjim on October 9, 2004 06:21 PM

payback, you're my hero.........thank you for you comments and continued efforts at enlightenment regarding so many issues brought up here......I have read through many blog, and find that I share your views and objectivity as well as your sense of humor....please keep it up......

Posted by: justme on October 10, 2004 02:02 AM


Thank you for your generous comments. It’s great to know there are like-minded people out there.

I’m looking forward to seeing the final Bush/Kerry debate tonight; don’t miss it!
But just when you thought pre election shenanigans were just about as seedy as they might possibly get, here comes this… ( go to http://money.cnn.com and click on the anti-kerry/sinclair broadcast story). A Multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate is about to exert its control over the public airwaves in order to secure an election outcome favorable to its interests. Now then, lets just take a guess who their candidate of choice might be…hmmmmmm…

Posted by: payback! on October 13, 2004 07:16 AM

PAYBACK!!! I've missed you buddy! I have the trailer all cleaned up for tonight... AND the night we watch Sinclair Broadcasting 's John Kerry Show... the FIRST reality show on the subject! LOL.... Think he'll have the b**ls to show up in response to their invite???? I don't= he still hasn't released ALL his records... and since he wrote so many of his own anyway....
C'mon Payback- you know to some extent I'm kidding- but I really do feel these guys may have a valid point down in there somewhere, and I'd like to hear if BEFORE we vote in someone who potentially has NO character! He betrayed men he served with and consorted with the enemy in Hanoi (maybe he was alliance building huh?) and he is enshrined in the Communist War Crimes museum in North Vietnam... there is PICTURE evidence to prove it.

Frankly I think the PAST does to some extent forcast the FUTURE , and if one TENTH of what these guys wrote and said is true, then for me at least, that makes Kerry a VERY scary prospect to have as Commander in Chief. At least with Bush (and his "strut") what you see really IS what you get- and I prefer straightforward men.

And then there's the Breck Boy, Edwards... who's gonna make people walk again just by getting elected... give me a break!

See you tonight at the trailer... by the way, are Reasonable and Knowgoal coming????

Posted by: AnArmyMom on October 13, 2004 07:59 AM

PS Payback- you can go straight to Sinclair's site and tell them what you think about it- they have an opinion line up there for you to email them.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on October 13, 2004 08:00 AM


I do realize we don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on our political views, and that’s ok; I do appreciate your humor. And you know I’ll join you in yer trailer to watch the debate. Break out those old flowery tin T.V. trays, cause I’m a headin’ over with a couple bags of Pork Rinds and a twelver of the Blue Ribbon! And I certainly hope KnowGoal will be able to attend. I better get Wit in on it too, for my backup! What the heck, justme is comin’ too!

And I definitely will catch the Sinclaire broadcast, but when I watch it I will be contrasting its content with that of the documentary ‘Going Upriver’. If you have not seen it, I recommend it. It gives a perspective from the men who served with Kerry on that Swift-boat, and it also covers Kerry’s actions (regarding Viet Nam) following his military service. Kerry does not appear in the film other than the historical footage that was used. I have to admit, what I saw was a young and principled man with sound temperament who appeared to have nothing but the utmost respect and concern for the lives of all those who were fighting in Viet Nam. But I certainly will watch the Sinclaire counterpoint.

I think it’s best when deciding to pass judgment on a man’s character (particularly one who is asking to be President), that a person pursues as much information (from reliable sources) as possible. Before I cast my vote, I intend to do just that.

*C-ya tonight….. and dang it, will you fix that damn flat tire on your house? The whole darned thing is a leanin’ such that I caint hardly gain a purchase on my equilibrium.

Posted by: payback! on October 13, 2004 10:41 AM

Dang it Payback- I've got the whole trailer up on blocks now, just like the truck in the frontyard! Hope you're happy! But, good news, I got a possom (real fresh too- only on the road a couple hours and hardly any tiretracks on him) and he's a-cooking now... so as soon as you get here with the Bud we're set!

You know- we're not that far apart really. I agree with you (go figure..lol) that before making a complete judgement on the subject we need to look at all that's been said. I dont' mind doing my own research, what scares me is the folks that WON'T and will buy into whatever their "newschannel" (and I use the term loosely) is telling them.

I will watch the "upriver" movie- thanks for putting me onto it. What bothers me about the whole thing is that in all I've read and seen (and I have looked in a lot of places)Kerry seems to have the attention span of a gnat, as far as staying committed to anything- particularly if it's not personally advancing for him and his agenda. To see his picture shaking the enemies hand in Paris, even as his COMRADES were being tortured, turns me, and shows (in my opinion) a horrific LACK of character. I don't know ANY Vet who would have WILLINGLY consorted with the enemy and stood with THEM in opposition to the views of his own countrymen- but Kerry did.

Understand, I don't see the events of 35 years ago as anything but indicative of his BASIC character, because I don't see anything in his record since then, that would indicate he has modified how he is. He's very extreme; and seems very fickle in that, he does shift his views to suit the situation- like a chameleon. I do NOT want a President who does that. I have NOT agreed with Dubya and all he's done, but I DO respect the fact that he stands by what he believes- popular or not.

Have you ever seen the his "new soldier" book? That made my skin crawl. So, I feel compelled to keep investigating his background and views- and I see way too many instances where he switched sides. And compounded with what the Swiftvets book had to say- I find it hard to think of his as trustworthy. Those guys had NO REASON to come forward and come from all walks of life and political background- they've kept quiet for 35 years, but finaly felt compelled. Now the media, when they mention them at all, has colored them once again as obsessed wacko liars... and "i think the doth protest too much"... after all, if it IS all a pack of lies, why didn't Kerry just release the records, say they're a bunch of liars and have done with it? Why did he call them and ask them to change their stories... and things like that? There's a rat in the woodpile, and I'd like to see just what it's all about- hopefully BEFORE the election.

THen too, there's the Michael Moore "documentaries" so don't talk to me about Sinclair's thing being unfair... at least Kerry is being invited to come, appear and give his side.

Posted by: AnArmyMom on October 13, 2004 11:50 AM


You're right about the Michael Moore movie. I don't think his style is particularly effective. His films are always designed in such a way that conveys the idea that 'agenda' is operating. I think he loses a lot of very good points behind his style of presentation. But, remember his movie was offered in the theatre, as was 'Upriver', and that is where they belong. For a giant corporation to mandate that its affiliates broadcast commercial-free partisan political propaganda (right or wrong) over public airwaves without affording the opposition the same opportunity is another matter. Perhaps 'Fahrenheit 911' should be shown for balance? I doubt we'll see that. Listen, Corporations, as a general rule, run contrary to the public's best interest (our founding fathers understood this very well), this is why they sought to control them very tightly. As time passed, corporations unfortunately gained a lot of ground against public interest. Bottom line is this; ask yourself why a giant conglomerate like Sinclaire is pulling a maneuver like this on the eve of an election. Common sense should suffice here; it's not rocket science. The intention is certainly not that they're so terribly concerned for you and me and the general population that they just couldn’t stand the idea of us basing our decision upon misinformation. Rather, the idea is to get their 'CEO' back into office. You’re kidding yourself if you think they're doing this out of some sort of sense of patriotism or obligation to the public. Make no mistake about it; the true color of corporate America isn't red, white, and blue- but the color of MONEY!
Like you, I too want ALL the available information, but when we watch, we hopefully watch through a questioning lens.

* Boy do I have a hankerin' for some fresh cooked Possum! Can't wait.


Posted by: payback! on October 13, 2004 02:04 PM

Sorry Payback, but I have to take exception with you here. I don't know Sinclair's motives- I DO think the Vets are motivated only by wanting to get their message out, and Sinclair broadcasting is the ONLY one willing to do it. How nice that Moore and whoever did "Upriver" have the budgets and backing (and gee I wonder where THAT eminates from) to do their "documentaries" (and in Moore's case that is a misnomer) in the theatre, where they can present their ONE side to the kids- a large untapped impressionable group of voters. Let's see, now Moore is running around the country to colleges continuing to spread the LIE (started by Charlie Rangel) that there will be a draft and THEY will have to leave their cushy little lives to go fight for our country (oh heaven forbid). Sorry, I don't delineate between the various medias that much these day- there is not ONE whose motives are clean.

I seem to remember some memos, which the mainstream is studiously ignoring- and THEY were presented on TV also... but I don't hear the Left screaming foul on that one cause after all "the basic STORY is true.... they just couldn't find any facts to back it up"... and did you hear the one about a boy named Jack and some beanstalk... I saw it on TV so it must be true!

PULEEZE.... Its ok to run Bush into the ground; the big Three can bias their reports (proven 70/30 favoring Kerry), pass memos not to question Kerry's position too much, but nail Bush.... Yes, I think its entirely fair to air the Sinclair broadcast . People are NOT stupid, but these men are very special Americans with a message, and I think THEY deserve equal time.

I heard a joke yesterday which pretty much sums up the current state of affairs: Bush and the Pope were sailing down the river on a yacht when the Pope's hat blew off. Bush had the boat stopped and then walked on water to retrieve it.
The afternoon headline was "Bush can't Swim!"

(and boy warn't that thar possum mmmmhmmmGood!

Posted by: AnArmyMom on October 14, 2004 03:47 AM

Hey y'all! Great to be back- my trailer home got repo'd last week, but all's good. Knowgoal sent me some money on the grounds that I don't expose her children to any culture.

So how about those debates! Very interesting, I think. I'm taking this class at Montclair State University, it's called "Press, Politics and Pursuing the Presidency." We've been talking about a whole lot of things- media bias, campaign ads, and definitely the debates.

How important do you think they were? I think they've been great for Kerry, who before explained too much when the media was only looking for sound bites. I think he finally got the chance to do so, and he was great.

Bush would have been great too, if he didn't have that spooky smile on his face and if they'd stop showing his reaction shots. It is very evident that Bush is passionate (not to be confused with COMpassionate). But he has no sense of control. The second debate for example, when Charlie Gibson was trying to move on to another question and Bush completely disregarded the rules and went forward anyway....hey, why does that sound familiar? Anyway, it's a lack of control, and too much impulse can be a bad thing.

Go ahead, let the attacks come. I've been waiting for another round of interesting discussion here, just thought I'd start it.

Hey AnArmyMom, got any of that possum left? Mmm-mmm, love that home-cookin'. Got a 'coon and some taters on the stove right now, fixin' me up a grand stew. Payback, you should come over, too. Gotta jug o' moonshine we can all pass around.

;) later...

Posted by: reasonable_wit on October 14, 2004 05:43 AM


Well, if you truly believe that "there is not ONE whose motives are clean", then we really are not all that far apart. I simply believe Sinclair's motives are "not clean"- and I will view the material knowing that. I AM interested to see whatever this anti-Kerry material is, and maybe even more so, to see how it is presented. But all things being ‘equal’, I would also like the opportunity to see another "documentary" presented (commercial free) over the public airwaves, so I don't have to go to the theatre to see it... 'Fahrenheit 911'. It's true, I have not seen Moore's movie; as I've said, I'm not thrilled with his style (based on his other work), but I do think it would be "fair" to show IT too. This would certainly go a long way (at least in my mind) in establishing Sinclair’s credibility.

Your interest in the Swift-boat vets leads me to think you may really appreciate the ‘Going Upriver’ documentary. If you end up seeing it, I’d be interested in your take. It has interviews with the Swift-boat vets who were on kerry’s vessel, and the movie is definitely not reminiscent of Moore’s approach.

And as far as Dan Rather goes…, what can I say? His liberal bias has been pretty well known for some time. No great revelation there. The little “memo” fiasco only served to totally debunk his credibility, as it should have. And, any ‘truth’ that may have existed with respect to the information cited in those documents is now lost to controversy. A serious blow to the credibility of all mainstream media, and an ancillary victory for the ‘Right.’


Welcome back! Glad KnowGoal came through with some cash so you could save your trailer… (she’s always so showy with that big paycheck of hers).
*Now YOU should see ‘Going Upriver’ too… I’m almost certain you would like it.

Sure is fun bein’ trailer park neighbors with ole’ ArmyMom and Wit! I mean, coon AND taters, right on the heels of that possum blossom? I must a died an gone straight to the ole’ King’s Kitchen Buffet in the sky! Lordy…

Posted by: payback! on October 14, 2004 08:31 AM

Some light reading for the sleepy thread...

Without a Doubt

October 17, 2004

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan
and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told
me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war
in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of
that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same
as the one raging across much of the world: a battle
between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and
true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a
light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to
Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this
sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has
told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and
self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a
champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's
governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is
so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist
enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be
persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark
vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. .
. .

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him
with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He
truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith
like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing
about faith is to believe things for which there is no
empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you
can't run the world on faith.''

Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in
March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest
speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the
president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we
swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the
president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing
problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and
Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems
securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked
at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the
right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I
finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you
don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the
senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the
room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts
aren't good enough!'''

The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying
to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been
an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability,
opacity and action.

But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.

Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top
deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill,
Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals
fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they
requested explanations for many of the president's
decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with
accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on
his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state,
and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro Bartlett, a
deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune
that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to
trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President
George W. Bush. This evangelical group -- the core of the
energetic ''base'' that may well usher Bush to victory --
believes that their leader is a messenger from God. And in
the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the
discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time,
the issue of Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry
put it, that ''you can be certain and be wrong.''

What underlies Bush's certainty? And can it be assessed in
the temporal realm of informed consent?

All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty
and religiosity -connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and
faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country
and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the
personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But
faith has also shaped his presidency in profound,
nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning
faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and
his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a
decision -- often swiftly, based on a creed or moral
position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were
surprised to see in the first presidential debate are
familiar expressions to those in the administration or in
Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his
positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce;
Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased,
and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility
-- a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that
has, in many ways, moved mountains -- is not just for
public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the
White House. As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that
she announced her resignation as administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency: ''In meetings, I'd ask if
there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I
was accused of disloyalty!'' (Whitman, whose faith in Bush
has since been renewed, denies making these remarks and is
now a leader of the president's re-election effort in New

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive
pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about
erecting a wall between organized religion and political
authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago.
George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment
-- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He
has created the faith-based presidency.

The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model
that has been enormously effective at, among other things,
keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White
House a kind of state secret. The dome of silence cracked a
bit in the late winter and spring, with revelations from
the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and also,
in my book, from the former Bush treasury secretary Paul
O'Neill. When I quoted O'Neill saying that Bush was like
''a blind man in a room full of deaf people,'' this did not
endear me to the White House. But my phone did begin to
ring, with Democrats and Republicans calling with similar
impressions and anecdotes about Bush's faith and certainty.
These are among the sources I relied upon for this article.
Few were willing to talk on the record. Some were willing
to talk because they said they thought George W. Bush might
lose; others, out of fear of what might transpire if he
wins. In either case, there seems to be a growing silence
fatigue -- public servants, some with vast experience, who
feel they have spent years being treated like Victorian-era
children, seen but not heard, and are tired of it. But
silence still reigns in the highest reaches of the White
House. After many requests, Dan Bartlett, the White House
communications director, said in a letter that the
president and those around him would not be cooperating
with this article in any way.

Some officials, elected or otherwise, with whom I have
spoken with left meetings in the Oval Office concerned that
the president was struggling with the demands of the job.
Others focused on Bush's substantial interpersonal gifts as
a compensation for his perceived lack of broader
capabilities. Still others, like Senator Carl Levin of
Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other
than his native intelligence. ''He's plenty smart enough to
do the job,'' Levin said. ''It's his lack of curiosity
about complex issues which troubles me.'' But more than
anything else, I heard expressions of awe at the
president's preternatural certainty and wonderment about
its source.

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of
certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with
a few ranking senators and members of the House, both
Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high
hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the
Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and
the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about
countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The
problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European
countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were
not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One
congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat
from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress
-- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed
more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the
president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate
to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about
25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several
people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush
said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly
reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said
Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically
neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a
gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national
guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses
gathered with administration officials and other
dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The
president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You
were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an

This story was told to me by one of the senators in the
Oval Office that December day, Joe Biden. Lantos, a liberal
Democrat, would not comment about it. In general, people
who meet with Bush will not discuss their encounters.
(Lantos, through a spokesman, says it is a longstanding
policy of his not to discuss Oval Office meetings.)

This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open
dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of
inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which
undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in
the decision-maker and, just as important, by the
decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether
staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a
California congressman in a meeting about one of the
world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any
number of times on the campaign trail, ''By remaining
resolute and firm and strong, this world will be

He didn't always talk this way. A precious glimpse of Bush,
just as he was ascending to the presidency, comes from Jim
Wallis, a man with the added advantage of having deep
acuity about the struggles between fact and faith. Wallis,
an evangelical pastor who for 30 years has run the
Sojourners -- a progressive organization of advocates for
social justice -- was asked during the transition to help
pull together a diverse group of members of the clergy to
talk about faith and poverty with the new president-elect.

In December 2000, Bush sat in the classroom of a Baptist
church in Austin, Tex., with 30 or so clergy members and
asked, ''How do I speak to the soul of the nation?'' He
listened as each guest articulated a vision of what might
be. The afternoon hours passed. No one wanted to leave.
People rose from their chairs and wandered the room,
huddling in groups, conversing passionately. In one
cluster, Bush and Wallis talked of their journeys.

''I've never lived around poor people,'' Wallis remembers
Bush saying. ''I don't know what they think. I really don't
know what they think. I'm a white Republican guy who
doesn't get it. How do I get it?''

Wallis recalls replying, ''You need to listen to the poor
and those who live and work with poor people.''

Bush called over his speechwriter, Michael Gerson, and
said, ''I want you to hear this.'' A month later, an almost
identical line -- ''many in our country do not know the
pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do'' --
ended up in the inaugural address.

That was an earlier Bush, one rather more open and
conversant, matching his impulsiveness with a can-do
attitude and seemingly unafraid of engaging with a diverse
group. The president has an array of interpersonal gifts
that fit well with this fearlessness -- a headlong,
unalloyed quality, best suited to ranging among different
types of people, searching for the outlines of what will
take shape as principles.

Yet this strong suit, an improvisational gift, has long
been forced to wrestle with its ''left brain'' opposite --
a struggle, across 30 years, with the critical and
analytical skills so prized in America's professional
class. In terms of intellectual faculties, that has been
the ongoing battle for this talented man, first visible
during the lackluster years at Yale and five years of drift
through his 20's -- a time when peers were busy building
credentials in law, business or medicine.

Biden, who early on became disenchanted with Bush's grasp
of foreign-policy issues and is among John Kerry's closest
Senate friends, has spent a lot of time trying to size up
the president. ''Most successful people are good at
identifying, very early, their strengths and weaknesses, at
knowing themselves,'' he told me not long ago. ''For most
of us average Joes, that meant we've relied on strengths
but had to work on our weakness -- to lift them to adequacy
-- otherwise they might bring us down. I don't think the
president really had to do that, because he always had
someone there -- his family or friends -- to bail him out.
I don't think, on balance, that has served him well for the
moment he's in now as president. He never seems to have
worked on his weaknesses.''

Bush has been called the C.E.O. president, but that's just
a catch phrase -- he never ran anything of consequence in
the private sector. The M.B.A. president would be more
accurate: he did, after all, graduate from Harvard Business
School. And some who have worked under him in the White
House and know about business have spotted a strange
business-school time warp. It's as if a 1975 graduate from
H.B.S. -- one who had little chance to season theory with
practice during the past few decades of change in corporate
America -- has simply been dropped into the most
challenging management job in the world.

One aspect of the H.B.S. method, with its emphasis on
problems of actual corporations, is sometimes referred to
as the ''case cracker'' problem. The case studies are
static, generally a snapshot of a troubled company, frozen
in time; the various ''solutions'' students proffer, and
then defend in class against tough questioning, tend to
have very short shelf lives. They promote rigidity,
inappropriate surety. This is something H.B.S. graduates,
most of whom land at large or midsize firms, learn in their
first few years in business. They discover, often to their
surprise, that the world is dynamic, it flows and changes,
often for no good reason. The key is flexibility, rather
than sticking to your guns in a debate, and constant
reassessment of shifting realities. In short, thoughtful

George W. Bush, who went off to Texas to be an oil
wildcatter, never had a chance to learn these lessons about
the power of nuanced, fact-based analysis. The small oil
companies he ran tended to lose money; much of their value
was as tax shelters. (The investors were often friends of
his father's.) Later, with the Texas Rangers baseball team,
he would act as an able front man but never really as a

Instead of learning the limitations of his Harvard
training, what George W. Bush learned instead during these
fitful years were lessons about faith and its particular
efficacy. It was in 1985, around the time of his 39th
birthday, George W. Bush says, that his life took a sharp
turn toward salvation. At that point he was drinking, his
marriage was on the rocks, his career was listless. Several
accounts have emerged from those close to Bush about a
faith ''intervention'' of sorts at the Kennebunkport family
compound that year. Details vary, but here's the gist of
what I understand took place. George W., drunk at a party,
crudely insulted a friend of his mother's. George senior
and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines
of something having to be done. George senior, then the
vice president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who
came to the compound and spent several days with George W.
in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was
soon born again. He stopped drinking, attended Bible study
and wrestled with issues of fervent faith. A man who was
lost was saved.

His marriage may have been repaired by the power of faith,
but faith was clearly having little impact on his broken
career. Faith heals the heart and the spirit, but it
doesn't do much for analytical skills. In 1990, a few years
after receiving salvation, Bush was still bumping along.
Much is apparent from one of the few instances of
disinterested testimony to come from this period. It is the
voice of David Rubenstein, managing director and cofounder
of the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm
that is one of the town's most powerful institutions and a
longtime business home for the president's father. In 1989,
the catering division of Marriott was taken private and
established as Caterair by a group of Carlyle investors.
Several old-guard Republicans, including the former Nixon
aide Fred Malek, were involved.

Rubenstein described that time to a convention of pension
managers in Los Angeles last year, recalling that Malek
approached him and said: ''There is a guy who would like to
be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs
a job. . . . Needs some board positions.'' Though
Rubenstein didn't think George W. Bush, then in his
mid-40's, ''added much value,'' he put him on the Caterair
board. ''Came to all the meetings,'' Rubenstein told the
conventioneers. ''Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean
ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about
three years: 'You know, I'm not sure this is really for
you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't
think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't
know that much about the company.' He said: 'Well, I think
I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really
like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the
board.' And I said thanks. Didn't think I'd ever see him

Bush would soon officially resign from Caterair's board.
Around this time, Karl Rove set up meetings to discuss
Bush's possible candidacy for the governorship of Texas.
Six years after that, he was elected leader of the free
world and began ''case cracking'' on a dizzying array of
subjects, proffering his various solutions, in both foreign
and domestic affairs. But the pointed ''defend your
position'' queries -- so central to the H.B.S. method and
rigorous analysis of all kinds -- were infrequent.
Questioning a regional supervisor or V.P. for planning is
one thing. Questioning the president of the United States
is another.

Still, some couldn't resist. As I reported in "The Price of
Loyalty," at the Bush administration's first National
Security Council meeting, Bush asked if anyone had ever met
Ariel Sharon. Some were uncertain if it was a joke. It
wasn't: Bush launched into a riff about briefly meeting
Sharon two years before, how he wouldn't ''go by past
reputations when it comes to Sharon. . . . I'm going to
take him at face value,'' and how the United States should
pull out of the Arab-Israeli conflict because ''I don't see
much we can do over there at this point.'' Colin Powell,
for one, seemed startled. This would reverse 30 years of
policy -- since the Nixon administration -- of American
engagement. Such a move would unleash Sharon, Powell
countered, and tear the delicate fabric of the Mideast in
ways that might be irreparable. Bush brushed aside Powell's
concerns impatiently. ''Sometimes a show of force by one
side can really clarify things.''

Such challenges -- from either Powell or his opposite
number as the top official in domestic policy, Paul O'Neill
-- were trials that Bush had less and less patience for as
the months passed. He made that clear to his top
lieutenants. Gradually, Bush lost what Richard Perle, who
would later head a largely private-sector group under Bush
called the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had
described as his open posture during foreign-policy
tutorials prior to the 2000 campaign. (''He had the
confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know
very much,'' Perle said.) By midyear 2001, a
stand-and-deliver rhythm was established. Meetings, large
and small, started to take on a scripted quality. Even
then, the circle around Bush was tightening. Top officials,
from cabinet members on down, were often told when they
would speak in Bush's presence, for how long and on what
topic. The president would listen without betraying any
reaction. Sometimes there would be cross-discussions --
Powell and Rumsfeld, for instance, briefly parrying on an
issue -- but the president would rarely prod anyone with
direct, informed questions.

Each administration, over the course of a term, is steadily
shaped by its president, by his character, personality and
priorities. It is a process that unfolds on many levels.
There are, of course, a chief executive's policies, which
are executed by a staff and attending bureaucracies. But a
few months along, officials, top to bottom, will also start
to adopt the boss's phraseology, his presumptions, his
rhythms. If a president fishes, people buy poles; if he
expresses displeasure, aides get busy finding evidence to
support the judgment. A staff channels the leader.

A cluster of particularly vivid qualities was shaping
George W. Bush's White House through the summer of 2001: a
disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of
decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes
bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly
questioners. Already Bush was saying, Have faith in me and
my decisions, and you'll be rewarded. All through the White
House, people were channeling the boss. He didn't
second-guess himself; why should they?

Considering the trials that were soon to arrive, it is easy
to overlook what a difficult time this must have been for
George W. Bush. For nearly three decades, he had sat in
classrooms, and then at mahogany tables in corporate
suites, with little to contribute. Then, as governor of
Texas, he was graced with a pliable enough bipartisan
Legislature, and the Legislature is where the real work in
that state's governance gets done. The Texas Legislature's
tension of opposites offered the structure of point and
counterpoint, which Bush could navigate effectively with
his strong, improvisational skills.

But the mahogany tables were now in the Situation Room and
in the large conference room adjacent to the Oval Office.
He guided a ruling party. Every issue that entered that
rarefied sanctum required a complex decision, demanding
focus, thoroughness and analytical potency.

For the president, as Biden said, to be acutely aware of
his weaknesses -- and to have to worry about revealing
uncertainty or need or confusion, even to senior officials
-- must have presented an untenable bind. By summer's end
that first year, Vice President Dick Cheney had stopped
talking in meetings he attended with Bush. They would talk
privately, or at their weekly lunch. The president was
spending a lot of time outside the White House, often at
the ranch, in the presence of only the most trustworthy
confidants. The circle around Bush is the tightest around
any president in the modern era, and ''it's both exclusive
and exclusionary,'' Christopher DeMuth, president of the
American Enterprise Institute, the neoconservative policy
group, told me. ''It's a too tightly managed
decision-making process. When they make decisions, a very
small number of people are in the room, and it has a
certain effect of constricting the range of alternatives
being offered.''

On Sept. 11, 2001, the country watched intently to see if
and how Bush would lead. After a couple of days in which he
seemed shaky and uncertain, he emerged, and the moment he
began to lead -- standing on the World Trade Center's
rubble with a bullhorn -- for much of America, any
lingering doubts about his abilities vanished. No one could
afford doubt, not then. They wanted action, and George W.
Bush was ready, having never felt the reasonable
hesitations that slowed more deliberative men, and many
presidents, including his father.

Within a few days of the attacks, Bush decided on the
invasion of Afghanistan and was barking orders. His speech
to the joint session of Congress on Sept. 20 will most
likely be the greatest of his presidency. He prayed for
God's help. And many Americans, of all faiths, prayed with
him -- or for him. It was simple and nondenominational: a
prayer that he'd be up to this moment, so that he -- and,
by extension, we as a country -- would triumph in that dark

This is where the faith-based presidency truly takes shape.
Faith, which for months had been coloring the
decision-making process and a host of political tactics --
think of his address to the nation on stem-cell research --
now began to guide events. It was the most natural
ascension: George W. Bush turning to faith in his darkest
moment and discovering a wellspring of power and

Of course, the mandates of sound, sober analysis didn't
vanish. They never do. Ask any entrepreneur with a blazing
idea when, a few years along, the first debt payments start
coming due. Or the C.E.O., certain that a high stock price
affirms his sweeping vision, until that neglected, flagging
division cripples the company. There's a startled look --
how'd that happen? In this case, the challenge of
mobilizing the various agencies of the United States
government and making certain that agreed-upon goals become
demonstrable outcomes grew exponentially.

Looking back at the months directly following 9/11,
virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe
that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used
more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue
Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora. Many have
also been critical of the president's handling of Saudi
Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 hijackers; despite Bush's
setting goals in the so-called ''financial war on terror,''
the Saudis failed to cooperate with American officials in
hunting for the financial sources of terror. Still, the
nation wanted bold action and was delighted to get it.
Bush's approval rating approached 90 percent. Meanwhile,
the executive's balance between analysis and resolution,
between contemplation and action, was being tipped by the
pull of righteous faith.

It was during a press conference on Sept. 16, in response
to a question about homeland security efforts infringing on
civil rights, that Bush first used the telltale word
''crusade'' in public. ''This is a new kind of -- a new
kind of evil,'' he said. ''And we understand. And the
American people are beginning to understand. This crusade,
this war on terrorism is going to take a while.''

Muslims around the world were incensed. Two days later, Ari
Fleischer tried to perform damage control. ''I think what
the president was saying was -- had no intended
consequences for anybody, Muslim or otherwise, other than
to say that this is a broad cause that he is calling on
America and the nations around the world to join.'' As to
''any connotations that would upset any of our partners, or
anybody else in the world, the president would regret if
anything like that was conveyed.''

A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the
Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction
of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and
community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had
left the job feeling that the initiative was not about
''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but
rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way
to consolidate and energize that part of the base.

Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded
over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand,
and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he
exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that
his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith
Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others
remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with
faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare
bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush
he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address
a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our
energies, our focus, our resources on this war on
terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if
we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also
overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not
only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on

Bush replied that that was why America needed the
leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.

''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need
your leadership on this question, and all of us will then
commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of
injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll
never defeat the threat of terrorism.''

Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls.
They never spoke again after that.

''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a
self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now.
''What I started to see at this point was the man that
would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American
Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts

But with a country crying out for intrepid leadership, does
a president have time to entertain doubters? In a speech in
Alaska two weeks later, Bush again referred to the war on
terror as a ''crusade.''

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in
Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's
former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a
meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the
White House's displeasure, and then he told me something
that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I
now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the
reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who
''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study
of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something
about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me
off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,''
he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we
create our own reality. And while you're studying that
reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again,
creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . .
. and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we

Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based
community? Many of the other elected officials in
Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and
Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss
Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush
to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time
Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I
want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When
one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped,
''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

The 9/11 commission did not directly address the question
of whether Bush exerted influence over the intelligence
community about the existence of weapons of mass
destruction. That question will be investigated after the
election, but if no tangible evidence of undue pressure is
found, few officials or alumni of the administration whom I
spoke to are likely to be surprised. ''If you operate in a
certain way -- by saying this is how I want to justify what
I've already decided to do, and I don't care how you pull
it off -- you guarantee that you'll get faulty, one-sided
information,'' Paul O'Neill, who was asked to resign his
post of treasury secretary in December 2002, said when we
had dinner a few weeks ago. ''You don't have to issue an
edict, or twist arms, or be overt.''

In a way, the president got what he wanted: a National
Intelligence Estimate on W.M.D. that creatively marshaled a
few thin facts, and then Colin Powell putting his
credibility on the line at the United Nations in a show of
faith. That was enough for George W. Bush to press forward
and invade Iraq. As he told his quasi-memoirist, Bob
Woodward, in ''Plan of Attack'': ''Going into this period,
I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm
surely not going to justify the war based upon God.
Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray to be as
good a messenger of his will as possible.''

Machiavelli's oft-cited line about the adequacy of the
perception of power prompts a question. Is the appearance
of confidence as important as its possession? Can
confidence -- true confidence -- be willed? Or must it be

George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history's great
confidence men. That is not meant in the huckster's sense,
though many critics claim that on the war in Iraq, the
economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some
manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that
he's a believer in the power of confidence. At a time when
constituents are uneasy and enemies are probing for
weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching confidence
has an almost mystical power. It can all but create

Whether you can run the world on faith, it's clear you can
run one hell of a campaign on it.

George W. Bush and his team have constructed a
high-performance electoral engine. The soul of this new
machine is the support of millions of likely voters, who
judge his worth based on intangibles -- character,
certainty, fortitude and godliness -- rather than on what
he says or does. The deeper the darkness, the brighter this
filament of faith glows, a faith in the president and the
just God who affirms him.

The leader of the free world is clearly comfortable with
this calculus and artfully encourages it. In the series of
televised, carefully choreographed ''Ask President Bush''
events with supporters around the country, sessions filled
with prayers and blessings, one questioner recently summed
up the feelings of so many Christian conservatives, the
core of the Bush army. ''I've voted Republican from the
very first time I could vote,'' said Gary Walby, a retired
jeweler from Destin, Fla., as he stood before the president
in a crowded college gym. ''And I also want to say this is
the very first time that I have felt that God was in the
White House.'' Bush simply said ''thank you'' as a wave of
raucous applause rose from the assembled.

Every few months, a report surfaces of the president using
strikingly Messianic language, only to be dismissed by the
White House. Three months ago, for instance, in a private
meeting with Amish farmers in Lancaster County, Pa., Bush
was reported to have said, ''I trust God speaks through
me.'' In this ongoing game of winks and nods, a White House
spokesman denied the president had specifically spoken
those words, but noted that ''his faith helps him in his
service to people.''

A recent Gallup Poll noted that 42 percent of Americans
identify themselves as evangelical or ''born again.'' While
this group leans Republican, it includes black urban
churches and is far from monolithic. But Bush clearly draws
his most ardent supporters and tireless workers from this
group, many from a healthy subset of approximately four
million evangelicals who didn't vote in 2000 -- potential
new arrivals to the voting booth who could tip a close
election or push a tight contest toward a rout.

This signaling system -- forceful, national, varied, yet
clean of the president's specific fingerprint -- carries
enormous weight. Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican
senator from Rhode Island, has broken with the president
precisely over concerns about the nature of Bush's
certainty. ''This issue,'' he says, of Bush's ''announcing
that 'I carry the word of God' is the key to the election.
The president wants to signal to the base with that
message, but in the swing states he does not.''

Come to the hustings on Labor Day and meet the base. In
2004, you know a candidate by his base, and the Bush
campaign is harnessing the might of churches, with hordes
of voters registering through church-sponsored programs.
Following the news of Bush on his national tour in the week
after the Republican convention, you could sense how a
faith-based president campaigns: on a surf of prayer and
righteous rage.

Righteous rage -- that's what Hardy Billington felt when he
heard about same-sex marriage possibly being made legal in
Massachusetts. ''It made me upset and disgusted, things
going on in Massachusetts,'' the 52-year-old from Poplar
Bluff, Mo., told me. ''I prayed, then I got to work.''
Billington spent $830 in early July to put up a billboard
on the edge of town. It read: ''I Support President Bush
and the Men and Women Fighting for Our Country. We Invite
President Bush to Visit Poplar Bluff.'' Soon Billington and
his friend David Hahn, a fundamentalist preacher, started a
petition drive. They gathered 10,000 signatures. That fact
eventually reached the White House scheduling office.

By late afternoon on a cloudy Labor Day, with a crowd of
more than 20,000 assembled in a public park, Billington
stepped to the podium. ''The largest group I ever talked to
I think was seven people, and I'm not much of a talker,''
Billington, a shy man with three kids and a couple of dozen
rental properties that he owns, told me several days later.
''I've never been so frightened.''

But Billington said he ''looked to God'' and said what was
in his heart. ''The United States is the greatest country
in the world,'' he told the rally. ''President Bush is the
greatest president I have ever known. I love my president.
I love my country. And more important, I love Jesus

The crowd went wild, and they went wild again when the
president finally arrived and gave his stump speech. There
were Bush's periodic stumbles and gaffes, but for the
followers of the faith-based president, that was just fine.
They got it -- and ''it'' was the faith.

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in
late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser
to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the
president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's
an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do,
all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast,
a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let
me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered
2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy
working people who don't read The New York Times or
Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they
like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the
way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when
you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's
good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like?
They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,''
of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

The bond between Bush and his base is a bond of mutual
support. He supports them with his actions, doing his level
best to stand firm on wedge issues like abortion and
same-sex marriage while he identifies evil in the world, at
home and abroad. They respond with fierce faith. The power
of this transaction is something that people, especially
those who are religious, tend to connect to their own
lives. If you have faith in someone, that person is filled
like a vessel. Your faith is the wind beneath his or her
wings. That person may well rise to the occasion and
surprise you: I had faith in you, and my faith was
rewarded. Or, I know you've been struggling, and I need to
pray harder.

Bush's speech that day in Poplar Bluff finished with a
mythic appeal: ''For all Americans, these years in our
history will always stand apart,'' he said. ''You know,
there are quiet times in the life of a nation when little
is expected of its leaders. This isn't one of those times.
This is a time that needs -- when we need firm resolve and
clear vision and a deep faith in the values that make us a
great nation.''

The life of the nation and the life of Bush effortlessly
merge -- his fortitude, even in the face of doubters, is
that of the nation; his ordinariness, like theirs, is
heroic; his resolve, to whatever end, will turn the wheel
of history.

Remember, this is consent, informed by the heart and by the
spirit. In the end, Bush doesn't have to say he's ordained
by God. After a day of speeches by Hardy Billington and
others, it goes without saying.

''To me, I just believe God controls everything, and God
uses the president to keep evil down, to see the darkness
and protect this nation,'' Billington told me, voicing an
idea shared by millions of Bush supporters. ''Other people
will not protect us. God gives people choices to make. God
gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation
at this time.''

But when the moment came in the V.I.P. tent to shake Bush's
hand, Billington remembered being reserved. '''I really
thank God that you're the president' was all I told him.''
Bush, he recalled, said, ''Thank you.''

''He knew what I meant,'' Billington said. ''I believe he's
an instrument of God, but I have to be careful about what I
say, you know, in public.''

Is there anyone in America who feels that John Kerry is an
instrument of God?

''I'm going to be real positive, while I keep my foot on
John Kerry's throat,'' George W. Bush said last month at a
confidential luncheon a block away from the White House
with a hundred or so of his most ardent, longtime
supporters, the so-called R.N.C. Regents. This was a
high-rolling crowd -- at one time or another, they had all
given large contributions to Bush or the Republican
National Committee. Bush had known many of them for years,
and a number of them had visited him at the ranch. It was a
long way from Poplar Bluff.

The Bush these supporters heard was a triumphal Bush,
actively beginning to plan his second term. It is a second
term, should it come to pass, that will alter American life
in many ways, if predictions that Bush voiced at the
luncheon come true.

He said emphatically that he expects the Republicans will
gain seats to expand their control of the House and the
Senate. According to notes provided to me, and according to
several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak about what
they heard, he said that ''Osama bin Laden would like to
overthrow the Saudis . . .

then we're in trouble. Because they have a weapon. They
have the oil.'' He said that there will be an opportunity
to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his
inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies
during his second term.

''Won't that be amazing?'' said Peter Stent, a rancher and
conservationist who attended the luncheon. ''Can you
imagine? Four appointments!''

After his remarks, Bush opened it up for questions, and
someone asked what he's going to do about energy policy
with worldwide oil reserves predicted to peak.

Bush said: ''I'm going to push nuclear energy, drilling in
Alaska and clean coal. Some nuclear-fusion technologies are
interesting.'' He mentions energy from ''processing corn.''

''I'm going to bring all this up in the debate, and I'm
going to push it,'' he said, and then tried out a line.
''Do you realize that ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge] is the size of South Carolina, and where we want to
drill is the size of the Columbia airport?''

The questions came from many directions -- respectful, but
clearly reality-based. About the deficits, he said he'd
''spend whatever it takes to protect our kids in Iraq,''
that ''homeland security cost more than I originally

In response to a question, he talked about diversity,
saying that ''hands down,'' he has the most diverse senior
staff in terms of both gender and race. He recalled a
meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schr�der of Germany. ''You
know, I'm sitting there with Schr�der one day with Colin
and Condi. And I'm thinking: What's Schr�der thinking?!
He's sitting here with two blacks and one's a woman.''

But as the hour passed, Bush kept coming back to the thing
most on his mind: his second term.

''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in,'' Bush
said, ''with fundamental tax reform, tort reform,
privatizing of Social Security.'' The victories he expects
in November, he said, will give us ''two years, at least,
until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because
after that I'll be quacking like a duck.''

Joseph Gildenhorn, a top contributor who attended the
luncheon and has been invited to visit Bush at his ranch,
said later: ''I've never seen the president so ebullient.
He was so confident. He feels so strongly he will win.''
Yet one part of Bush's 60-odd-minute free-form riff gave
Gildenhorn -- a board member of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee and a former ambassador to Switzerland --
a moment's pause. The president, listing priorities for his
second term, placed near the top of his agenda the
expansion of federal support for faith-based institutions.
The president talked at length about giving the initiative
the full measure of his devotion and said that questions
about separation of church and state were not an issue.

Talk of the faith-based initiative, Gildenhorn said, makes
him ''a little uneasy.'' Many conservative evangelicals
''feel they have a direct line from God,'' he said, and
feel Bush is divinely chosen.

''I think he's religious, I think he's a born-again, I
don't think, though, that he feels that he's been ordained
by God to serve the country.'' Gildenhorn paused, then
said, ''But you know, I really haven't discussed it with

A regent I spoke to later and who asked not to be
identified told me: ''I'm happy he's certain of victory and
that he's ready to burst forth into his second term, but it
all makes me a little nervous. There are a lot of big
things that he's planning to do domestically, and who knows
what countries we might invade or what might happen in
Iraq. But when it gets complex, he seems to turn to prayer
or God rather than digging in and thinking things through.
What's that line? -- the devil's in the details. If you
don't go after that devil, he'll come after you.''

Bush grew into one of history's most forceful leaders, his
admirers will attest, by replacing hesitation and
reasonable doubt with faith and clarity. Many more will
surely tap this high-voltage connection of fervent faith
and bold action. In politics, the saying goes, anything
that works must be repeated until it is replaced by
something better. The horizon seems clear of competitors.

Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance
-- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion
-- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one
man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the
particular conversation the president feels he has with God
-- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?

That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and
talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he
says. He is no longer invited to the White House.

''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're
penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance
and accountability and help us reach for something higher
than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that
moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King
did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness --
that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes
self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he
said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see,
leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the
thing we as humans so very much want.''

And what is that?

''Easy certainty.''

Posted by: payback! on October 22, 2004 01:37 PM

I watched the video of Mr. Armstrong. I am sick to my stomach. I cannot believe that happened. This is 2004 for Gods sakes. American needs to realize we are dealing with demon possesed people who hack off heads, and fly airplanes into buildings and do it to honor their deepest beliefs. From day one of their lives they are taught to hate, and you better believe we are on that list of people they hate. I feel its to simple minded to say NUKE em. That is to cliche. But, something very significant needs to be done and done soon. We need to figure something out, or these bastards will be in our country doing this.

Posted by: Gily on November 11, 2004 03:17 PM

give peace a chance!

Posted by: kile on September 29, 2006 05:17 AM

right on gily!!!

Posted by: kile on September 29, 2006 05:20 AM

cost the us.we need to stand together and be as one black hisp. white and asian jews what we beleive is what we beleive and violence is not our american dream

Posted by: kile on September 29, 2006 05:28 AM

i've watched the video..it is incredible. what's going on on this planet

Posted by: mutuelle on June 25, 2010 03:50 AM

Hey folks.....both my muslim and Infidel brothers
I am a muslim.And to my infidel brothers,I would just like to ask one question:Do you know why we,Muslims,are behaving this way?Do u know the answer?Well I surely know......
Yes,my American brothers,you heard it rite.....ISRAEL.We muslims are angered simply because of the way you are,not only protecting,but allowing,this So-called "Innocent " state to continue their unjust and unlawful actions against muslims,especially Palestinians.You may reject this statement,but it is the truth.Israel is a country CREATED by the west.It is a country which still exists ONLY because of the west,namely America.They took by force what was rightfully the land and property of the Palestinians.My American friends,this is the TRUTH.I don't know what history books u guys study but this is a FACT.In fact,I believe America didn't go to Iraq for oil,they simply attacked Iraq for the security of the FALSE(a word that you guys often use to refer to our beloved prophet)state that is ISRAEL.Muslims brothers,do you support my view on the cause of the American invasion?Everybody has just mentioned America attacked Iraq for oil,but I don't think so.I firmly believe they attacked Iraq for the sole purpose of protecting Israel.It is surprising that no believer brother has claimed this before!
And....yes,Islam does say to kill infidels,but there is a condition,it is only applicable when YOU have been attacked FIRST.Which means in SELF-DEFENSE.The existence of Islam was threatened by the non-believers and also Muhammad (SAW)]'s life.What would you do if the most precious thing in your life were to be SNATCHED AWAY right in front of you.Would you sit there and watch it OR do something about it?U Americans are smart people so I would assume that you know the answer.And I forgot to add,Islam was probably the most precious thing to our prophet.
And..on a the comment "The whole middle east is not worth a single drop of American blood".Well.....that says it all about the Americans on their views on the rest of the world,doesn't it ,my muslims brothers?This is basically the reason why Americans are being killed today.And I tell you,you infidel scums,if you don't quit protecting Israel and stop supporting mass murder of muslims,each and everyone of you deserves to be beheaded like this.
And to my muslims brothers who read this thread,I would like to say:Don't be afraid my brothers.We have nothing to fear.Inshallah,Allah is with us.And also,it is our religious duty to fight in the way of Allah.So I would urge you to have faith in the Almighty and wage Jihad in the name of Allah(And Jihad does not necessarily mean physical WAR,contrary to popular INFIDEL belief).I have made it a resolution to speak out against all wrongs and lies in this world and I will continue to do so until the Americans see the truth and change their attitude towards muslims.May Allah bless all!

Posted by: Whitesnake on December 9, 2010 07:10 AM

What is solution for this? When these people live and let live others peacefully?

Posted by: jack hooper on May 24, 2011 06:18 AM

Also see these other great immigration resources

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration

A 28 part detailed report on the negative impacts of illegal immigration.
Immigration Stance
Immigration Stance

Find out how your members of Congress voted on immigration issues.

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
Read the free 28 part report The Dark Side of
Illegal Immigration

Includes facts, figures
and statistics.

  ... More Categories

Site Meter

Search Diggers Realm
Web Diggers Realm

The Realm Daily Digest
Have Diggers Realm articles emailed to you daily!

Powered by FeedBlitz
See a sample of the email!

ICE Tip Line

Capitol Switchboard

Your Representatives
On Immigration
Find out how your members of Congress voted on immigration issues at Immigration Stance.

Get The Latest Immigration News
Illegal Immigration News
The latest all in one place! Bookmark it today!

Knights Of The Realm

Home | Bio | Contact | Sitemap

Copyright © Dan Amato - 1996-Present