Check out these incredible photos of Sadam being captured by American forces. It makes you feel like you were there!

What’s this? An evil tyrant’s hiding place?

What’s this? An evil tyrant’s stash of cash?

What’s this? An evil tyrant? Somebody take my picture!

Talk about your Kodak moments!

Relax, you’re among friends.

The Perp Walk. “Hey can I get a room with Martha Stewart?”

Note the big smile.

Yes. It’s over.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. masis says:

    doesn’t look like real Saddam, still believe that it’s fake and the real one is alive…!

  2. rojand says:

    We grew up with sadam, it was never forgotten that a lot of iranian and kurds were killed by sadam. I can never forget the memory of Theran when it was attacked by sadam missiles when i was child, I can never forget my little friends who I missed in this brutal war.

  3. kurd boy says:

    مه رگ و نه مان بو دوژمنانی گه لی کورد

  4. HASSAN MUNEER says:

    As a muslim I would like to thanks the father of this nation mr BUSH you did a great job to capture that f** saddam thanx also to all the US soldiers thats what i called a MIRACLE. I’m sending you this message from BUJUMBURA BURUNDI

  5. shannon says:

    What about Iran dimwit? What is wrong with all of you. First there was the Axis of Evil; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. What about the other two? Oh My God you are all idiots.
    That comment.

  6. Kolran Fett says:

    Response to what?

  7. shannon says:

    kolran I have been waiting for so long for a response, it is hard to believe that you have nothing to say

  8. shannon says:

    so Kolran what is your comeback for this one?

  9. shannon says:

    What about Iran dimwit? What is wrong with all of you. First there was the Axis of Evil; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. What about the other two? Oh My God you are all idiots

  10. Kolran Fett says:

    no, it’s because they have/will have nuclear weapons you dimwit.

  11. shannon says:

    expose? Not me being mean just do not understand. Also what about the other ruthless leaders in the world that we do nothing about? Is it because their countries have nothing monetary for us?

  12. John says:

    this blog is expose to celebrate the illimination of a dictator and ruthless killer. in my opinion anyone not doing that is clearly just not right.

    Practically sympathizing for saddam

  13. John says:

    Yeah, even if execution is wrong. it wasnt up to the US

    As long as a corrupt leader is removed that is whats important.

    In iraqs case it is good that saddam is out of power, whether he was killed or not.

  14. aya says:

    death of a presumed crimmal does not rectify a long standing rift between two opposing poles rather from my standpoint has created a more controversial issue of justice… nor does the interference of america clearly justifies the death of all who participated in the recent iraq war. clearly, we have reduced ourselves to the dark ages where man is acting like beast killing eachone for griip of power.

  15. Kolran-Fett says:

    LOL, your pretty funny John Zelinski, or sad. One of the two. If you actually believe in a philosophy that someone who’s corrupt and conducts inhumane expieriments against someone can have the past let go, I feel bad for you. If you were trying to be funny, I had a laugh. It’s hard to tell when people are being sarcastic nowdays. Listen, his own people had him executed. Not us, so blaming bush isn’t going to do you a damn bit of good.

  16. John Zelinski says:

    Yeah i think he was a really bad man but he still did not need to die what he did was a long time ago let the past go and make the future. well some peopl if you really think about it i would really say yes he needed to but every man needs justice

  17. Floyd Abrams says:

    According to an NPR report that I just heard 1.8 million refugees of the Iraq war now have fled from their country since the US invasion. Included among them are Iraq’s best educated, the professionals, doctors, business men, scientists, professors. They, not an army, were Iraq’s only hope. Escalating the war by sending more US troops (i.e., targets), and supporting ethnic cleansing of Sunnis by Shiite militias, will not improve matters. Perhaps Bush has a cancer growing in his brain that makes him behave like a madman. Or did 9/11 just trigger a hysteria that has taken over his psyche? He certainly needs to be in therapy because he has been behaving irrationally since 9/11. His hysteria is causing horrible problems in the world and I don’t see any evidence that he has done much that is good for the US or the world since being elected president.

  18. MAUN says:


  19. Floyd Abrams says:

    Oh, and I forgot to mention another casualty of the Iraq war; Afghanistan where we are apparently losing according to a CIA operative who tracked Bin Laden for 10 years.

  20. Floyd Abrams says:

    Better enjoy it because you will be paying for it for the rest of your life. Total cost for this picture (so far): $500,000,000,000, 3000 US Servicemen’s lives, 25,000 US servicemen casualties, scores of coalition casualties and dead, a severely damaged US military, weakening of relations between former coalition partners, loss of Republican control of congress, a failed state (formerly known as Iraq), 600,000 to 750,000 Iraqi lives (believe it or not, that number is the best estimate available that uses reliable data collection methods), 1,000,000 war refugees, instability in the Arab Penninsula, greatly increasing Iran’s influence in the middle east, unrest between Kurdistan and Turkey (here is another war waiting to happen since the Iraqi Kurds, who we support, keep sending suicide bombers into Turkey attacking a representative democratic republic), America’s reputation as a moral international leader totally ruined.

  21. JASIM says:


  22. RAHUL says:

    Sadam’s trail was against the principles of natural justice , where he was denied of right to appeal in international court of justice. Moreover , his defence council and witnesses were killed in the course of trial. His trial is clear evidence of denial of justice.

  23. MELROSE says:


  24. Abuthahir says:

    If any one who,likes saddam.Please kill the dirty man, Bush by Shooting his large head

  25. Reid says:

    I hope I get to see him jerk.

  26. NIBAR says:

    f* sadam and who ever supports him

  27. kolran says:

    When I first saw this blog I thought, “Wow! That’s a lot of comments (the most of this site), I better post.” However after looking at this blog I relized that it is no longer active and the previous conversations on this site were all name calling. Therefore my only comment is about the pictures and it is, “Give the guy a break, and put him in the mental hopital.”

  28. Jack Antilla says:

    Well, Red, look at the political infastructure of the Nazis. VERY UNIFORM, VERY militaristic, very right wing athoritarian, change, which is esentually what liberalism is, was not smiled apon by any streatch of the imagination.

  29. Red King says:


    WHAT THE HELL IS CONSERVITIVE ABOUT THE NAZIS OR THE JAPANESE EMPIRE!!!??? No, you liberals are getting beaten, not us, you’re just showwing us how big of losers you are!

  30. McSpankerton says:

    And another thing, when I was a kid when I’d watch CBS, NBC, or ABC, and often the top story would be something like “Clinton is coming tomorrow for a speech…blah blah blah.” When Bush comes here for something it’s always a side story. Now tell me that’s not biased! When Clinton lied, the mainstream (liberal) media portrayed him as the victim, and mostly accused Monica Lewinski of being the irresponsible one. And when W. chokes on a pretzel or Cheney ACCIDENTALLY shoots a guy (the guy went to go looking for the bird and then decided to abruptly come out of the brush while Mr. Cheney was firing at some quail) it’s their TOP STORY!!!…
    freaking idiotic mainstream crap-media!

  31. McSpankerton says:


    You said the Iraqi death toll is around 100,000. You are wrong by far. Sean’s projection of 11,000 was what it was in 2003; the current death toll is some 30,000.

    and this one says that in 2004 scientists projected the casualties to be over 100,000 but they were indeed wrong-according to studies by three other groups:

    Anyway, I agree with Sean. The mainstream media is liberally biased and they never hold a debating session for both sides like FoxNews does. Also, BBC is one of the most reliable news sources, and just above is information from them.

  32. Umut says:

    i just have a couple of questions. what are the french and english doing in africa? why does this people speak these countries’ language? why does bush think that he received a message from god to protect the world? what is this petrol love? isnt bush commiting ideas about these nuclear weapons which are told to be present in ıraq? then where are the weapons? did they find anything? why was usama bin laden was a CIA agent? how could such a powerful country cannot catch bin laden? did bush asked the usa community if they want war? were there any referandum? ok..

    do u want war? did terrorists attacked usa for no reason? are u consider those people who crashed the planes to the twin towers as terrorists or freedom fighters? hey dont be mad.. i will give you the answer.. they are terrorists because they killed many civil people.. not soldiers.. this is terrorism.. but however we have to consider one thing.. some kind of terrorist group attacked to usa (i still dont understand how they did) then bush seeked a country as terrorists and attacked the country.. first afghanistan and then ıraq. why didnt saddam used his “nuclear” weapons against usa ? i dont understand anything.. everything is so complicated.. so i dont think it is a good idea to have opinions about who is right or wrong.. because media rules the world.. you read something you believe in it. then you read something else which conflicts the idea of the other one you believe.. who are you going to believe? however i am waiting answers to my questions..

  33. Egegik says:

    I voted Democrat all my life until 1992.Then I voted for Ross Perot. I never left the Democrat Party. They left me.


  34. mr :Sharoon says:

    Saddam is not lair than Tony Blair and Bush
    Saddam is a man but the others are not.

  35. Nick says:

    His nose is much bigger in person than on NBC news. Say ” Goodnight David” Goodnight Chet “

  36. the giant says:

    ok u donot want to put my comment ok this is your democracy u americans never learn from the history cause u donot have one

  37. the giant says:

    where is my comment

  38. the giant says:

    isn this the american democracy style ? if it is i hope to see sharoon the butcher get arrested

  39. Vladimir says:

    These picturea are so stupid! I feel sorry for these guys!

  40. dan says:

    the liberals are all little girly-men; furthermore, i believe when a liberal dies they go to france, where i am sure they are very happy in their pleasant, lets-not-defend-our-country idea of heaven.

    thank you
    mr. ishfay

  41. John says:

    Sean, worry not, the US is indeed keeping its eye on the ball. That is why all strategic points that were initially secured following “shock and awe” were oil fields, oil refineries, and other such infrastructures. Have no fears, your conservative peers in the oval office, Halliburton, the Saudis that they are in bed with, and Dick Cheney are all making sure that the ball is secure and in play. And while they are at it, the major oil companies, supported by your conservative party, continue the fleecing of America. Dont worry Sean, I’m sure that you are on the top of their list of concerns.

  42. Julian says:

    Charlie, You are getting it. These photos, like the ones from Abu Ghraib prison, are neo-conservative erotica.

  43. Sean says:

    Perhaps you’re right Charlie. America should remain humble and gracious, but let me pose this question, “Is that how the rest of the world treats us…with humility and grace, or do they treat us with mockery and hate. Don’t they oppositely treat us with jealousy and snear at us, especially our so called allies the French and the Germans. The Russians as well?”
    So what if Saddam is a “scared and defeated foe”. Does that make him any less evil now then he was in power? Please let us keep our eye on the ball people.

  44. Charlie says:

    As a true patriot & conservative,I find it very sad to know that others who also call themselves these things,find photographs of an obviously scared and defeated foe “HILARIOUS”- as was part of the photo description! I certainly applaud our wonderful troops for their heroic capture of this alleged murderer(& more); but remember folks – part of what has always made America great is the ability to remain humble & gracious in the sight of the world ,despite our obvious military & political superiority. Perhaps it’s not so hard to understand why the world is seeing us differently than they have in past history! Don’t forget what righteousness is all about….America is supposed to be!

  45. Conservative says:

    Are these real pictures of the capture?, because they look real.

  46. Julian says:


    Regarding respecting Reagan – ok, that’s fair enough. Perhaps we should go a step farther and respect the living and the dead.

  47. BonnieM says:

    Correction to 106. I should have said exclamation rather than explanation.

  48. BonnieM says:

    Sorry Julian, but your comments come across as “in your face”, and it is really difficult to see “goofy sense of humour” unless you consider most of what you say as a joke. Now, I could believe that!

  49. Sean says:

    Ok, if it was a joke fine, but next time just say right after it…. I’m just kidding, or it’s only a joke not to be taken literally. You must understand, because we think so differently…when you say something like that and don’t clearly state you are kidding then I take it literally.
    One other thing. I wrote a very good response to your #94, but for some reason it didn’t post up. Either that or it posted on another comment page (but I don’t think this is the case). I’ll re-collect my thoughts and re-post when I get a minute.
    One last point. Let’s not disrespect a man who just died and we only buried a few days ago. I mean Ronald Reagan of course. If Bill Clinton was just buried, and I mean this, I wouldn’t disrespect him either.

  50. Julian says:

    Isn’t this site about laughing? That’s how I stumbled onto it in the first place – i googled “laugh”

  51. Julian says:

    Sean and BonnieM. Honestly, I pictured your guys getting a chuckle out of my jesus was from palestine comment. I am sorry, I have a goofy sense of humour sometimes. Sean, I do read your posts.

  52. Julian says:

    Sean, Lighten up man. I was joking about Jesus being from Europe. I feel like we still have some stuff to work through but our friendship is evolving – it’s a “work in progress.”

  53. Julian says:

    Have ya’ll read the article Greg mentioned in post #99? If not, I challenge you to read it.

    Behold reality.

  54. Julian says:

    Greg, That article on Chalabi was good. I encourage everyone to go read it in its entirety. With friends like Chalabi, does Bush really need any more enemies? Thanks Greg

  55. Sean says:

    Julian you Fuck! Read my explanation of politics in America. It IS NOT Hatfield vs. McCoy! I very clearly and cordially explained what politics are about in this country and why It would seem like it is just a sporting event but that it’s not. DO YOU EVEN READ PEOPLE’S RESPONSES TO YOU OR DO YOU IGNORE THEM.

  56. Sean says:

    You idiot, NO! I’ve identified the problem Julian. You can’t read or infer (infer means to read between the lines). I didn’t mean Jesus himself to go back to Europe you MORON! It was meant as an exclamation. As in “Jesus Julian you Socialist, go back to Europe”. Maybe there was a miscommunication here, but I really think you can’t read in context and infer what I’m saying. That’s where the breakdown in communication really is.

  57. BonnieM says:

    I’m sorry, Did I say something about Ahmed Chalabi? I really do think you are addicted. But honestly, where do you get off saying we are like our enemy. Because we don’t agree with you? What makes you think you are so smart? If you are, you know that no one said that Jesus was from Europe. He was using that aS An explanation and for YOU to go back to Europe, I bet. But since you read things into things that are not posted, maybe you ought to take A LITTLE break and clear your mind. You are seeing things!!!

  58. Julian says:

    You asked what my problem is. I guess question authority and don’t trust the government like you do.

  59. Julian says:

    Greg, Chalibi shoed the US Army off. He is currently part of the three-man leadership council for the Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress. He is why we invaded Iraq.

  60. Julian says:

    I just read through every singe post and I think that a problem that we are having in our communication is that our comments are out of synch across the various participants because of the timing of the posting cycle.

    Jimi wants me to quit but I can’t. I am totally addicted to this now. Sorry Jimi

  61. Sean says:

    Well said Kinch and Elise.

  62. Julian says:

    Sean, regarding post #71, Jesus wasn’t from europe. he was from Palestine.

  63. Julian says:

    BonnieM. Think I am making stuff up? Just do your own google search on Ahmed Chalabi and get back to me on what you learn.

  64. greg says:

    Dear Julian
    Dr. Ahmed Chalabi was indeed present at state of union address, however it was U.S. forces that arested him later. See full story at

  65. Julian says:

    I will believe that Bush is against tyrany when he stands up to China (2 thirds of the worlds people who are living under tyrany live in China. Bush wants them to have favored nation status), Putin’s re-tyranization of Russia (Putin decided democracy just wasn’t feasible in Russia right now or did you all not know that. Yet Bush will not stand up to him), the Saudi and Kuwati royal families (who are horrible people that Bush continues to prop up). If he takes them on in the name of liberty, I will change my views of him.

  66. Julian says:

    The problem for me is that those of us who aren’t hate machines (like you guys and your al qeada twins) are caught in the crossfire of your idiotic Hatfield vs McCoy sequel.

  67. Julian says:

    You guys actually sound EXACTLY like the people you think we should be killing, radical islamists. They think we hate the culture of the middle east, their religion, and their values (and that we think we have the right to prop up corrupt tyrants who oppress them – read some history you goof balls!). You are just exactly like your proclaimed enemy.

  68. BonnieM says:

    Julian, Sean may not agree and you did put the question to him, but the liberal media is not reporting facts. They are trying to make a buck alright, but they lean to the left with it because they lean that way and they are letting their personal feelings taint the facts. One reasons the networks of CBS,ABC, & NBC are losing ground to the cable networks, Then there is the Newspapers where most every article is written with a left slant. Of course since you agree with most of it- it probably doesn’t look slanted to you. Sean maybe able to answer it better, but thought I would let you know what I think

  69. Julian says:

    What exactly do you think the major corporations that own the majority of the media stand to gain by supporting liberal causes and pushing liberal news? Isn’t their goal to maximize their profit? My point is just that the companies that you think are responsible for the “liberal media” are just doing their capitalist thing trying to make a buck. Is that what you mean by liberal?

  70. Elise says:

    I think, maybe the liberals are here to try to win some points. Can’t win in the elections.

  71. Kinch says:

    Hey Julian, what the hell is your problem man.

    You really need to watch some Fox News and listen to some Rush Limbaugh (however you spell his name). Rush may be a crackhead, but he does make some good points. And fox news is the fairest news station ive found, so when i make my decisions i base it off their facts.

    And why the hell are there liberals at this website.

  72. Sean says:

    Julian, since when has the thought and fight for freedom become rhetoric. This is a big part of your problem. You don’t see freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as a lofty, worthwhile purpose to sacrifice for. You see it as a political tool that you call rhetoric.
    I’d like to comment seriously though on your comment 75. I can see how you would think that politics in America has become like a sport. Especially when you watch the conventions. Each side only competing to win just for the fun. However, I don’t believe this is true.
    One, and only one, of the reasons that I believe this is because of the last election. If you really look at the campaign that Bush ran, not from a partisan point of view, it was one of the most specific campaigns, based specifically on big issues, that an incumbent President has ever won for re-election. He specifically outlined what he stood for and what would be in his second term. I also believe that this is why Republicans won more Senate and House seats. I believe that the key is still debating the issues, and the most important thing is to win in the arena of ideas.
    It may just be a sport or a party for some who are involved, but I believe they are in the minority. I think that politics in this country is still rooted in issues and beliefs. If you look at the beliefs of the opposing parties they are starkly different, and that is the root of the debate. Let me know what you think, but please don’t turn it into a pitch that Americans are dumb and can’t debate issues, because then It’s not worth my time.

  73. Julian says:

    Speaking of elephants. Eventually you will all feel like the guy following the elephant in the parade.

  74. Julian says:

    Not and Ass or a pakaderm. Independent.

  75. Julian says:

    Hope you all are keeping abreast of the Chalabi story. It appears that Wolfowitz’s friend, and Bush’s special guest at the 2004 State of the Union, and the main intelligence source about Saddam’s imaginary WMDs is about to be handed over to Interpol on fraud charges. I wonder if he had anything to do with the $300 million Iraqi dollars that were stolen a couple of days ago. That money was supposed to be used to buy tanks and weapons from Jordan but the cash is missing now. Last seen on a lear jet (I am not joking).

  76. Sean says:

    I was too busy to respond on Friday, you know work.

  77. Sean says:

    Bush is fighting for freedom and the only reason you don’t think so is because he’s an elephant not a donkey.

    P.S.: To all the conservatives out there, Is it any wonder why the Democrats represent their party with an ASS (Donkey).

  78. Sean says:

    I think you’ve finally become delusional. I never said anything like your comment 73. I said that the mainstream media is and always has been liberal and if you don’t believe that they are liberally biased than you are more foolish than I thought.

  79. BonnieM says:

    By the way Julian, my friends and I helped put Bush in the Whitehouse both times, and we are not rich, and we are certainly not elite.

  80. BonnieM says:

    Hey, Julian, You are at it again. I partially agree with you and partially think you have to be dreaming some of this stuff. Politics are disheartening now. A lot of people do choose sides and in their passion, call names but you are still wrong about President Bush and this administration. And you know as well as I do, he is not fighting for tyrany. Why do you say those things? Do you think anyone is gonna believe you? C’mon, get real.That is as bad as saying all liberals don’t believe in God or are not patriotic.

  81. Julian says:

    Bush (and more importantly, Karl Rove) thinks that you folks are stupid. And you keep proving him right. Question him.

  82. Jimi says:

    Julian, Your one of those people that if you were to stop posting here……no one would care

  83. Julian says:

    Bush uses the rhetoric of freedom but fights FOR tyrany.

  84. Julian says:


    If Bush was fighting for freedom then I’d support him. But he is doing just the opposite.

  85. Julian says:


    Your use of the word “verifiable” is unique.

  86. Julian says:

    Whoever fights with monster should see to it that in the process
    he does not become a monster.

  87. Julian says:

    You may love Bush. But you need to face the fact that he )and the power elite who really put him in the White House) do not care about you.

  88. Julian says:


    Just reviewing your Saturday Mornings posts. Really missed having the chance to read your insights and thoughtful, unique, analyses on Friday. I want to make just a general comment and get some feedback on it. To me the little Hatfields versus McCoys rivalry that has emerged between Dems and Republicans is a distraction from virtually all of the important real (not political) problems that society is facing. Americans treat politics like its a sport, cheering for their team like crazy football fanatics. Worshiping their star players. I look out there at the political arena and I think, shit I personally have dozens of friends who could do a better job of running this country than the current (or previous) administration is doing. Why are our politicians such a bunch of underachievers? I mean, and I am being serious, I don’t think that Bush has the intellectual abilities to grasp even simple issues, much less issues that require thorough, disciplined analysis. And the model that he presents as his world view (the fanatical christian crusader one), could not be more ill suited to the problems that he needs to be addressing.

  89. Julian says:


    Don’t be hatin.

  90. Julian says:

    Sean, Let me get this straight (I hate it when people say “let me get this straight” but I thought I’d say it for rhetorical effect), you thing that the giant, greedy, wildly, pathologically, capitalistic coorporations like General Electric (NBC) are closet communists? Interesting.

  91. Sean says:

    The Confederacy was never a country. The Constitution clearly states that states don’t have the right to suceed from the Union. The Confederacy was a ridiculous rebellion; however, it was NEVER IT’S OWN COUNTRY. Every country goes through a civil war from time to time as did we. Do not disrespect Abraham Lincoln. He was a great man and if you do, I will try to have you kicked off this forum.

  92. Sean says:

    You are filled with Horses#$t in staggering amounts. Colin Powell did NOT beg Bush to not invade Iraq, he was the man who presented the information in front of the UN (after their 14 useless resolutions and Kofi Annan’s failure) to invade Iraq. He supported the war effort. He always has. He was just on the news the other day with Diane Sawyer setting her straight on the present state of Iraq and the progress that is being made to secure elections for Jan. 30th. I don’t know what the hell you are talking about and NEITHER DO YOU! Jesus go back to Europe.

  93. Sean says:

    To BonnieM,
    Thank you very much for your compliments.

  94. Sean says:

    The only media machine out there is the left-wing media. Let me remind you about ABC, NBC, CBS (Rather and his forged memo’s), CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post…these are all liberal media outlets, and if you don’t think so you’re stupid (but with your most recent comments that wouldn’t surprise me). Now I will grant you Fox News (which is also the highest rated cable news network…Conservatism = sucess) is conservative, and so is most of talk radio (which is also sucessful). However, the majority of the major news media is liberal, and it has been for many years.
    As for your response about the economy you either can’t read, or you’re more f@#$ed up than Julian. Every single thing I said was true and more importantly….VERIFIABLE. For your benefit, and I still don’t know why I’m doing this (probably because I’m feeling sorry for you), I’ll repeat it one more time.
    The economy throughout most of the nineties was stagnant at a 2.2% growth rate. This was primarily due to coming off a recession, and then having the biggest tax increase in the history of the country imposed on us by Clinton; $257 billion dollars to be exact. Now in 1996 the unemployment rate was 5.6%. It then slowly decreased over the next four years to 4%, and the stock market saw record highs; HOWEVER, THIS WAS DUE TO THE INTERNET BOOM AND EVERYONE IN THE WORLD BESIDES YOU ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (and maybe Rob). This phenomena had nothing to do with Clinton.
    In the early years of the first Bush term the Internet bubble burst, which once again, everyone else acknowledges except you. This aided in the stock market losing ground and the increase in unemployment. Now I will agree with you in one point you made. There were many corporate black eyes that added to the economic downturn like Tyco and Enron (don’t have a heartattack now).
    As for your loss of 2.2 million jobs, what you failed to mention was that over 1 million of those jobs were lost directly due to 9/11 (you know that day that liberals like to forget about and act like it never happened). The aviation and engineering industry, along with other related markets, took serious hits from that. However, since then over 1.6 million jobs have been created and are still being created. When I cited the fact that over 100,000 jobs had been created in November of 2004 alone, I neglected to mention that that was the 15th month IN A ROW that the economy had gained jobs! As I also said we have a growth rate of 3.7% and more jobs are being created all the time. In December of 2004 another 157,000 jobs were added. Now exactly what is bad about our economy? Our recovery is not only robust, it is downright skyrocketing, and just for your information we didn’t recover from the Great Depression until WWII. That’s right FDR did NOT dig us out (sorry his legacy still sucks!).
    The ONLY reason why you claim the economy is bad is because there is a Republican president. We could have a 17% growth rate and 2% unemployment, and you’d still be out there parroting for John Kerry, “This is the worst economy we’ve had in 50 years”. By the way did he vote for the tax cut before he voted against it?
    Now on to your fake surplus. Even one of the liberals on this website agreed with me that the 281 billion dollar surplus was a paper surplus. It was based on a 10 year budget. In other words, THERE NEVER WAS ONE! Besides the government should never run in a surplus. If there is a surplus they should give it back to the people in the form of a tax cut, because the government is not a private business.

  95. Sean says:

    No Julian, I don’t get it either. What’s wrong with showing off Saddam’s pistol? Are you worse than I thought? Are you another foolish anti-gun communist?

  96. Julian says:

    OK it’s late and maybe I’m not thinking so straight. I want to take the Lincoln thing back (please). It was a pathetic analogy, given that Lincoln did actually invade a country (or at least a confederacy). So I’m not so slick after all. DON’T PRESS ENTER

  97. Julian says:

    BonnieM. You’re a christian woman. You have to admit that invading Iraq is a pretty significant violation of the Golden Rule. You have to give me that one. Or perhaps in to rephrase Lincoln, “Just as I would not want to be invaded, I would not be an invader.”

    On Bush getting down on his knees and praying. There is a pretty good history of Bush’s conversion to christianity. When Patrick Buchanan beat G. Bush Sr. in the New Hampshire primary, W was given the assignment of getting the evangelical voters to come back to papa. W saw the necessity of seducing the religious right for political success. His religion is in the service of his political ambition. He plays the part well – to his credit. But he isn’t for real. His only true religion is coorporate domination.

  98. Julian says:


    Time Magazine June 7, 2004

    hough it was widely reported at the time that the pistol was loaded when they grabbed Saddam, Bush has told visitors that the gun was emptyand that it is still empty and safe to touch. “He really liked showing it off,” says a recent visitor to the White House who has seen the gun. “He was really proud of it.”

    So what you ask? You really don’t get it do you?

  99. BonnieM says:

    I remember well, when people were hollering, “Don’t stop now! Go on to Bagdad and take him out of power” . But our Administration and the UN said, “No,we were only given instruction, or permission, if you will, to get him out of Kuwait. And no, I don’t listen to the televangelist much less send them money. And where, Julian, do you get the idea that Bush likes to show off Sadamms pistol? And if he does, so what? Also, if you go to church or have a pastor or a minister, he may have his own idea about this war. I have listend to Charles Stanley and he has a big following. He thinks we are very fortunate to have a President who begins and ends his days on his knees. My own Pastor is not so sure. So you can’t say that everyone who believes in this war is not a Christian. For goodness sakes, why do you think we have different denominations. We don’t have to all think alike about religion or politics.

  100. Julian says:

    You know Bush likes to show off Saddam’s pistol to his visitors in the oval office. Don’t you all think that a child’s leg that was blown off by one of our bombs would be a nice memento for him to have to go along with it. If there is a particle of humanity left in you, you have to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion is a horrendous disaster.

  101. FreeThinker says:

    You are right Saddam proved he was a threat when he invaded Iraq, but then explain to me why we did nit remove him them. We told his oppsers there you go overthrow Sadaam they we hightailed it, left them stranded. My what happened they were slaughtered. Now you expect us to beleive with the history of Presidents both Democratic and Republican supporting dictatorships has all of the sudden had a change of heart, why because Georgie boy claims he’s born again. I bet you also give $1000’s to televangelist claiming that if you send money now you’ll be saved from the Rapture. You seem intelligent, don’t disgrace yourself by beleiving this pile of crap that gets dished out by the neo-cons. Unless you own a corporation they don’t care about you, they are playing you.

  102. Julian says:

    I also want to add this about Colin Powell. To his credit, he virtually got down on his knees and begged Bush not to invade Iraq. Then like a good soldier, he followed the orders of his Commander in Chief and went to the UN (with his little bottle of fake anthrax to boot). Speaking of anthrax …

  103. Julian says:

    BonnieM. Do you really think Saddam could have mounted another Kuwait invasion? A group of boyscouts could have held him off his army was so pathetically weak and poorly organized. According to the Johns Hopkins study published in Lancet, the death rate among non-combatants jumped by 100,000 – this is the increase in the death rate above the baseline level that was occurring under Saddam. Finally, as for Colin Powells beliefs. I don’t know. But I strongly believe that you only get to make 1 big mistake like that when you are a leader and then you have to be held accountable. It is a serious problem when you invade a country (even if you don’t like their leader) under false pretenses or based on faulty data. I don’t understand how people could act like this is just an ordinary screw up. This is unprecidented in US history and folks act like – hey, shit happens, people screw up, get over it. That is why the rest of the world thinks that we Americans are psychopaths.

  104. BonnieM says:

    You don’t know that those same Iraqis would not be raped, tortured or killed by Sadamm. Saddam had already proven he was a threat to other countries when he went into Kuwait. He was paying the families of the suicide bombers . He killed and tortured his own people. Look at the mass graves. Do you think Colin Powell would have taken it to the UN if he didn’t believe it?

  105. Julian says:

    BonnieM. Do you remember that after George Tenet presented his best case against Saddam to Bush, Bush replied “that’s all you’ve got?” Tenet never gave Bush any intelligence data that even remotely suggested that Saddam was a threat to the US or any other country. Nonetheless, Bush pulled the trigger on Saddam and, more tragically, on many innocent Iraqis who are now dead or missing limbs etc who should never have had to give up their lives in the service of self-serving plans of the megalomaniacs running this country! He called the hard shots all right. At no cost to him but other human beings (innocent ones) paid the ultimate price.

  106. BonnieM says:

    I am not criticizing Clinton. I hated when that whole Monica thing came up. The Republicans couldn’t or wouldn’t let go of it. I was ashamed for them (I am not or was not a republican- I consider myself Independent) but you see that is the problem in my estimation. Each party latches on to anything they can and just drag it into the ground. But I did vote for Bush. I wish we hadn’t gone into Iraq, but we did and I believe the worse thing we could possibly do it to pull out before the job is done. I don’t think Pres. Bush lied to us. I believe at the time he sincerely believed what Russia, Britian and our own CIA was telling him. And frankly, I still think those WMD’s are probably in Syria. But I have no proof of course. The Iraqis rose against Sadamm once and thinking we would be there to back them up, and we weren’t even tho’ from what I understand, they were led to believe we would. Maybe if Clinton had been more ready for a fight when the USS Cole had a hole blown in the side, or when the embassies were bombed or when the first bombing of the World Trade Center. At the time, I thought he was doing the right thing, and maybe he was, but it just kept getting worse & then 9/11. I don’t have what it takes to call the hard shots, but Pres. Bush does, and so I will support him.

  107. Rob says:

    Re: post #50, Freethinker, another point that can be made to explain the 2003 growth numbers involves a concept that the neo-cons vehemently reject, that of “demand-side” economics, or deficit financing of the economy.

    You see, the neo-cons have a religious faith in “supply-side” economics, which says you should cut taxes on the wealthy, keeping more money in the hands of investors who will increase production with this new capital and thereby creating jobs and generating growth.

    But what Bush has actually done resembles more “demand-side” economics, or at least is such a mix that neo-cons cannot claim ideological credit for any resulting growth. By running a deficit to finance the war, Bush is the ultimate Keynsian. He grows the economy by “demanding” (on credit no less) more production (of bombs and planes and security and things), thereby stimulating growth. Demand-side economics usually says in times of slow growth, the goevrenemnt should have programs (infrastructure, generous unemployement, public works job creation, etc) even if it requires a deficit, that puts money in the hands of consumers who “demand” new products and grow the economy. Bush has the mother of all government funded demand-side job creation programs.

    The fact that you can have growth without lowering unemployment could be explained by how little actual value is being obtained for the deficit money spent on the war. (Remember, the amount that gets recorded on GDP numbers is simply the cost of the contract, and not the value of the good).

    Now since this deficit financing is occuring ALONGSIDE tax cuts, the BUSH admin is trying to do both (stimulate demand and suppply), meaning at a minimum he can’t claim his tax credits have anything to do with growth, only that they MIGHT, because there are equally plausible alternative explanations (i.e. deficit war spending).

  108. Julian says:

    BonnieM. I promise that I have many of the same beefs with the Dems. I wouldn’t try to defend their agendas either. But you defending Bush by criticizing Clinton (or anyone else) is like OJ Simpson’s attorneys defending OJ by saying that he wasn’t as bad as Tim McVey. They are both breathtakingly corrupt and both parties fall far short of what we should demand of our leaders!

  109. BonnieM says:

    Sean is smarter and has more on the ball than Julian and Freethinker (by the way — the name doesn’t seem appropriate for you – but that is beside the point) will ever have at this rate. Pulling numbers out of the air and being sooooo negative. Guys (or gals) spend your time trying to figure out what is wrong with your own party. Not being critical of the winners. Sour grapes!!!

  110. Julian says:


    It looks like it’s just us here now. Seriously, this blog went stone cold. Perhaps they should replace the laugh wave file with one of crickets chirping. I wonder if the usual crowd took the day off because they were glued to the tube watching W’s “reoathening.” Or maybe they were attending the Balls in DC.

  111. Julian says:

    Needless to say, I think we are in over our heads in Iraq. Now let’s pose a little thought question – just as an exercise. Eighteen months ago did any of you think that it was conceivable that the Baathists were ever going to come back into power in Iraq. But now you look at how the insurgency is gaining momentum and you think, well, maybe they can stick it out for another two-three years, kill another few thousand US troops, kill another 50,000-100,000 Iraqis, and come back to power. It’s not a crazy thing for them to think that they can pull it off. It’s terrible to contemplate it but it’s not irrational for them to think they can do it. What strategies could we develop to keep this sort of situation from becoming a reality? Imagine the consequences.

  112. Julian says:

    “US conservative groups are up in arms over a music video featuring children’s TV heroes such as the cheerful cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.” BBC News

    OK guys. Now you’ve crossed the line.

  113. FreeThinker says:

    I do not think that there is any hope for Sean or those like him. They live in a bubble. They live in an alternate plane of reality, where they think Republicans are the only true God-fearing red-blooded Americans and they think that Bush is the Messiah. They have been brainwashed by the right wing media machine and are incapable of any critical thinking. And Sean well you have definately watched too much of Cheney, Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld talk because you talk in circles just like them. First you say that the economy under Bush was slow, then after the info I provided you sound like a 4 year old with your only rebuttal being, well it wasn’t because of Clinton it was the internet. Which is it Sean? My are you being the righties’ favorite juvenile phrase a flip-flopper. Secondly I didn’t say it was Bush who directly caused a recession. No, that was Enron, TYCO, WorldCom, etc. It was due to corporate swindling and fraud that caused the stock market to crash in conjunction with 9/11. And once again it is the right wing parrot declaring everything is rosy in the economy, I believe that is called denial, and here is proof.
    During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating “5.6% unemployment is a good national number.” Hoxever, a White House report indicated that the president is considering reclassifying low-paid fast-food jobs as higher-paid manufacturing jobs to make it appear like the unemployment rate is going down. Also in reference to 3Q 2003 GDP (after the tax cuts) yes there was a 7.2% increase but there was also bad news, total employment fell by 165,000 jobs, according to Labor Department statistics. Not to mention that this wasand is always the case with tax cuts a temporary increase in GDP the next quarter it dropped 3% and has not done much to recover from that, because as you stated it is now only 3.7%. All you have proven with this statement is that tax cuts ae only a band aid on a hemmorhaging jugular. Now as for your employment statisitc, you gave a tiny piece of the big picture, 100,000 jobs in Nov 2004 but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (this is directly from their “Current Employment Statistics Highlight” dated December 3, 2004) “The recovery that followed the 2001 recession is not only less robust when compared to all other recessions(the includes the Great Depression in case you didn’t know), but employment still has not fully recovered. Employment still currently stands 432,000 jobs below its peak in March 2001.” These are the best rebuttals you can come up with come on Sean quit watching Fox News and you might actualyy start making sense and stumble into some facts.

  114. Julian says:

    Sean, I’m just warming up man.

  115. Sean says:

    Your last comment 45, I’m sorry, is so 180 degrees out of phase and untrue; I’d be replying to this thing all day. I can’t, man I have to work. You might as well go make your own ridiculous documentary and call it Julian’s Farenheit 1/19 (as in 1/19/2005).
    I’ve already refuted practically all of these claims you are making. I think you can make an argument well, but whether or not it holds water or not is another thing. We’ll talk again soon.

  116. Sean says:

    Free Thinker you are wrong again, Bill Clinton Signed two anti-gun laws. There was the Brady law and the Crime law and the assault weapons ban. You know the one that restricts magazine size (ludicrous), and bans many so-called “assault” weapons which by definition are not assault weapons because they are not automatic with a selector switch on them for various firing settings.

  117. Sean says:

    Free Thinker,
    If you new anything about the economy of the later half of the 90’s you’d know that the huge increase in the stock market (making middle class Americans millionaires) ,and the drop in unemployment HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BILL CLINTON. IT WAS THE INTERNET BUBBLE WHICH YOU PEOPLE CONVENIENTLY FORGET ABOUT WHEN YOU RELATE CLINTON AND THE ECONOMY OF THE 90’S. You are so full of crap it’s unbelievable. When the internet bubble burst our economy fell, along with the stock market, and unemployment went back up. This also had nothing to do With George Bush as you people like to conjure up.
    The economy then bounced back exhuberantly after George Bush’s tax cut. The quarter after the tax cut there was a 7.2% growth rate in the economy. There is now approximately a 3.7% growth rate which is strong and producing new jobs rapidly. We added over 100,000 in November 2004 alone, and that’s not a fake 20 million that Slick Willie claimed back in the 90’s.

  118. Julian says:

    To Sean,
    Saddam was hated and reviled. However awful Saddam Hussein was, he wasn’t a threat to any other country. In fact, Iraq was the weakest country in the region. One of the reasons why it was attacked was that it met the primary conditions for all targets of attack, it was defenseless and known to be. But a certain amnesia permits you to argue that we invaded Iraq because our leaders hearts bleed for the poor oppressed Iraqis. Theres a record that shows precisely the opposite. Part of the reason why Iraqis themselves were unable to send Saddam Hussein to the fate he deserves is that Reagan and Bush supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities and long after the war with Iran. Other comparable monsters and tyrants and torturers (i.e., Marcos, Dubalier, Mubutu, Suharto) were overthrown from within and this could have been accomplished with Saddam if we had not maintained policies that hurt the people of Iraq and supported Saddam. Remember Marcos, Duvalier, Mubutu, Suharto, and the list goes on, all strongly supported by US administrations, as long as they could maintain power, were overthrown from within. But if you destroy a society (via first supporting the tyrant and then placing sanctions on the nation that weakens the people), you force the society to rely on the tyrant just for basic survival, and weaken their ability to rise up against the tyrant.

    The Bush administration (and the liberals arent paying attention either, by the way. Liberals are just as much to blame for all of this crap) is not interested in stopping human oppression. The Wolfowitz (i.e., Bush) doctrine, which they have publicly announced, dominating the world by force, permanently, preventing any challenge, and in particular, controlling the very crucial energy resources of the world.

    Now that strategy is causing unintended and dire consequences. Intelligence agencies and independent analysts are reporting a sharp spike in recruitment for Al Qeada-style organizations, and if you are paying attention you will have noticed dramatic increases in horrendous terrorist acts all over the world over the past two years.

    The United States was the only country where a large part of the population was genuinely afraid of Saddam Hussein, because of his weapons of mass destruction, and his links to terror. It turns out that the people who had those attitudes are the ones who support the war. S#@t. If I believed those things, I would support the war, too. I mean, if there really is a murderous tyrant accumulating WMDs, responsible for 9-11, linked to Al qaeda, planning new terror, we have to stop him in time, it would make sense to invade Iraq. Of course, there never was any reason to believe there was a particle of truth to that. And they wont stop trying to justify this mistake. Just a year ago, long after the administrations case for the invasion had been clearly debunked, George Bush in a radio addresses said that the U.S., I’m quoting him here, “saved the world from a tyrant, who was developing weapons of mass destruction, and cultivating ties to terror.” Well, you know, nobody within the administration actually believed that, including his speechwriter. They do know this though. If you keep repeating a lie long and loud enough it will become truth in the minds of the inattentive.

  119. Julian says:

    Fact check update for Sean. You claimed Bill Clinton spent $70 billion in Somalia. “According to the Pentagon, the cost of its operations in Somalia through 1993 was about $760 million.” (from CDI.ORG). For a detailed discussion of the Somalia situation, I recommend

    It is going to take a while but I will work through your previous response to my comments point-by-point. Then let’s let the others vote on which one of us they think has a better grasp of the realities of the situations we are discussing.

  120. FreeThinker says:

    Wow Sean I have never seen an individual so brainwashed by the right wing goose stepping machine. I feel like I just pushed the play button on Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh all in one. First of all, I never said Clinton was my Golden Boy, you made an ASSumption. That just happens to be what you guys spout out like Polly the Parrot on Bill O’Reilly’s shoulder. As for your talking points:

    – he was a swindler, he lied about all his forms of income, he made back alley deals with Tyson food Co., if you dont know what that was it was called Whitewater.—–Considering no case was ever made I’d call that an invalid argument. Not saying there’s not a possibility but considering there was a Republican majority and they still couldn’t get a case, I’d call that pretty weak. That’s why you all spout off the blow job incident because that was the only thing you could get him on. Ooooh adultry that could cause an international incident, call Jerry Fallwell the sky is falling the sky is falling, it’s the rapture.

    -he was a Draft Dodger — As you stated he admitted it, unlike Bush whose Daddy got him on top of the 100,000 person long waiting list to get into the Air National Guard. The Guard back then is not like it is today. So do give me this Bushie Boy was an American hero, he was in a champaigne unit for crying out loud. At least Clinton had the balls to admit he was a draft dodger.

    -he smoked marijiuana but he didnt inhale. Okay you know he’s full of BS when he says he didn’t inhale. Let me see though, marijuana or cocaine, hmmm that’s hard to figure out which is worse.

    -he gave us the largest tax increase in the history of the country and forced our economy to remain stagnant for almost ten years.—- Yes he did raise taxes and along with that came lower unemployment(dropped to 4%, a 40-year-low); stock market grew even faster – by more than three times – creating thousands of millionaires among middle class stockholders, and employees of fast-growing companies like Microsoft. As for the econmic growth between 1992 and 2000 the Real Gross Domestic Product increased not 2.2%, not 10%, but but more than 50% from 6900 billion to 8900 billion, do these statistics come from liberal media oh paranoid one, well that would be a resounding NO they came straight from the US Department of Commerce, look it up slim.

    -he proposed and signed many worthless anti-gun laws which had NO effect– Actually it was only one gun law the Brady Bill and you are right it had a minimal effect on violent crimes. I do not think guns are the problem with society it is us being so reactionary.

    -he offered no military response when the twin towers were FIRST attacked in 1993, there was no response when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, or when our U.S. embassys around the world were attacked.—-38 days after Clinton took office the 93 wtc bombing occured. He learned a painful lesson of ignoring the terrorist menace. No he didn’t invade a country but he did capture, try, convict and imprison those responsible ( Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah. They are all behind bars. You can visit them and ask them if they think Clinton was tough on terror. I hear they enjoy visitors. You can ask them too about the Clinton adminstration’s ability to thwart planned terrorist attcks. The imprisoned were involved in further plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve US jetliners simultaneously. But neither happened. And neither did the huge attacks that were planned against the UN Headquarters, the FBI building, the Israeli embassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge. Why? Because Clinton thwarted them. He thwarted them all. Why, he even thwarted a terrorist truck bomb plot against the US embassy in Tirana, Albania not to mention the milleniem attempt that was trying to cross over from Canada into Washington State to blow up the space needle. That’s a lot of thwarting. How did he do that? Well, for one he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI. And doubled counterterrorism funding overall. And rolled up al Qaeda cells in more than 20 countries and created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity. His first crime bill contained stringent antiterrorism legislation as did his second. His administration sponsored a series of simulations to see how local, state, and federal officials should coordinate their responses to a terrorist strike (I should know I was a firefighter paramedic from 1996 to 2001). He created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines (including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine). The Clinton administration was the first presidenct to undertake a SYSTEMATIC ant-terrorist effort. By the wat in 1996 Bill Clinton requested from Congress more anti-terrorism funding Orin Hatch said, “The adminstration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding. And we did retaliate for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania(1998) in which Tomahawk missiles struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Even your Golden boy Newt Gingrich at the time was quoted,” The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists.” In addition Clinton issued a presidiential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

    -he made huge cuts in military spending and crippled our militaries budget and means —-
    In current dollars, we spent $273 billion on defense in 1986 and $266 billion in 1996. Yes, thats’ 2% less, but then again, the Soviet Union no longer existed. The Clinton budget in 1996 was larger than the outgoing budget of the first Bush administration-abudget developed by then DOD Secretary Dick Cheney. Nine months after Bush Jr took office, we went to war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Soviets couldn’t conquer Afghanistan. Neither could the British in 1919. But somehow, the military did it in just a few weeks, with no new funding. Donald Rumsfeld had taken our “gutted” military and magically turned it into the greatest fighting force in history WOW he’s a genius. I have to go to bed, I will continue this later.

  121. Sean says:

    You don’t stand a chance in changing my mind. Furthermore….Don’t you dare patronize me or talk to me like I’m a child. You are talking like a typical liberal elitist, like you are better and smarter than all the rest. If this is how you are going to correspond don’t you dare direct anymore comments toward me. I suggest you choose your words carefully next time.

  122. Julian says:

    Sean, You are going non-linear. I don’t have time to reel you in tonight. I am confident that I can walk you through this thing and change your mind. Best regards, J

  123. Sean says:

    This is my problem with many of your liberal talking points, you talk about growing alliances and then you minimalize and marginalize our allies contributions. It doesn’t matter if they contribute 4,000 or 400,000 troops to the Battle they are still contributing. Furthermore hundreds or thousands of troops relative to smaller countries IS a big contribution. Try comparing apple to apples Julian. And I really don’t care if they are contributing any money! What we are doing is NOT about dollars and cents. That’s all you can think about here, but I’ll bet you didn’t complain one little bit when Bill Clinton spent 70 billion on Somalia. Ask the formerly oppressed and brutalized Iraqi people what their freedom is worth to them. Better yet….What is your freedom worth to you?
    Read all the top Medical, Phd minded, elitist journals that you want, we are not murdering women and children. Stop with the Micheal Moore talking points or our dialogue ends.
    There is no such thing as independant media, get your facts straight.
    Your national debt facts don’t square up even by your own admission. You said the debt is in the neighborhood of 7.6 trillion, but Bush just signed legislation to raise the debt ceiling to 800 billion. How do those numbers compute?
    As for the Soviet Union and Bin Laden…If you knew anything about War, Warfare, or Strategy, which you obviously don’t, you’d know that your allies can and do change day-to-day. Now by day-to-day I mean this figuratively. Our allies don’t literally change that frequently, but they do change often. In WWII Japan was our enemy, no they are our ally. In the 80’s during the Iran conflict, Iraq was our ally. What I’m saying is that things change. Especially, when you are talking about third world dictators and terrorists. Reagan may have “used” in a sense, or strongly supported Bin Laden at the time, because at that point in history he was fighting our larger enemy the Soviets. What you need to be smart enough to realize is that at any point in time, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. We only use people like Bin Laden or people like him if it is conveinent at that time, but it DOESN’t in any way make any of them our lifelong ally. These people are crazy extremist mad-men who are bent on killing anyone who threatens their 12th century dictatorships. They can’t be bargained with or reasoned with. They are anti-freedom, anti-democracy, and anti-american.

  124. Julian says:

    Oops. My bad. The 5 countries in the coalition that have troops in theater have contributed about 4000 total troops to the battle theater. Sorry for my previous error I will be more careful in the future.

  125. Julian says:


    Had a moment so I wanted to address your comment about the 28 country coalition. Combined they have about 2500 troops in theater. The median number of troops that any coalition country is contributing (even out of theater) is about 100. And how much money are they putting into this endeavor? About enough to run the operation for a half a day per year. You like apples? How do you like them apples? check out for full details. Pay particular detail to how many coalition members will remain by mid 2005. Yikes! Yesterday was my first blogging experience. I think I could really get into this stuff.

  126. Julian says:


    At 4:16 pm, Jan 19, 2005, the US debt was $7,614,594,726,857.80. Remember when Bush signed legislation in mid-November, 2004 increasing the debt ceiling to $800 billion. I am not sure how to square this with the numbers that your are coming up with. Look forward to continuing this but have to take a Dean candidate to dinner now.

  127. Julian says:

    Regarding the bankrupcy of the Soviet Union. Reagan did contribute (although we now know that the USSR was running on fumes already when Reagan took office). Reagan strongly supported bin Laden, though, because Reagan was smart enough to realize that bin Laden could do more damage to the USSR with his economical little force of “freedom fighters” (isn’t that what Reagan called bin Laden?) than the US could ever do playing the arms race card.

  128. Julian says:

    Hi Sean,

    Just sort of systematically going through your positions. Recomputed the cost of the Iraq war to date. So far the US (not including anything that any other country has pitched in) has spent $151.1 billion. The war has lasted 656 days so far. Thus, we spend $230,335,365.90 per day on the war. We are operating in deficit currently. Thus, this amount must be borrowed each day to fund the war. QED

    ps Congress expects Bush to request another $50 billion in emergency funding for the war sometime in the next two weeks.

  129. Julian says:

    Sean, You asked what I read and listen to. I like independent media. I don’t trust coorporate media (liberal or conservative) because they are owned by people with too many conflicts of interest. I find the magazine The American Conservative to be pretty interesting when it comes to economics, as well as the magazine The Economist.

  130. Julian says:


    The number of Iraqi’s killed is over 100,000. This data is published in one of the top medical journals in the world, Lancet. It was carried out by a team of the top public health epidemeology experts in the world who are on the faculty of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. We can debate their methodology but you need to get your facts straight.

  131. Sean says:

    No, Julian, I did not say that all media outlets are poor sources of information. I don’t think that a scholarly approach lies in the halls of libraries. And Please, don’t get me wrong I’ve spent many hours in libraries and they are great for reference information, but not for current events. I’m really trying to get something across here and I think it is falling on deaf ears.
    How can you say that the new media (talk radio or conservative news like Fox) has not affected the mainstream, liberal media when even they themselves have recognized it publically on their programs. How can you say it hasn’t affected them when now there is a new outlet for information, that is not through them. It just doesn’t make sense.
    I personally know that the audiences DO overlap a lot. I listen to a lot of talk radio and MANY of the callers are liberal, so I’m sorry again but you are wrong there.
    Ahh, if you can’t find a source of media or news information that you can listen to, or trust then you are never going to believe anything out there. You won’t be informed, and you’ll never understand anything that happens in the world that you don’t experience or see yourself from day to day.
    As a serious and honest question; however, what news outlets DO you listen to? Where do you get information from from day to day?

  132. Sean says:

    To Julian,
    Yes Julian, you are WRONG. Wrong on every point if you really want to know. So wrong I’m not sure where to start. We do NOT have the blood of over 100,000 Iraqi women and children on our hands….And even if we DID it would pale in comparison to the nearly 400,000 estimated killed and uncovered in mass graves by Saddam Hussein! The current number of Iraqi casualties stands at 11,000; no where near 100,000. I don’t know where you got that but it’s wrong.
    We do NOT borrow 229,000,000 a day to fight this war and we are NOT going it ALONE. There are 28 countries in our coalition! As for the national debt it has been reduced since last year. The debt is going down. The deficit is already 11 billion less than last year according to last week’s National Treasury report. This is due to the fact that tax revenue’s are up by over 10.5% while cash outlays by the federal government have only increased by only 6.1%. This is of course due to the tax cut (darn those tax cuts They ALWAYS WORK!). The deficit is on track to shrink to 355 billion by the end of 2005, down from 413 billion! So yes you are wrong.
    As for Bin Laden bankrupting the Soviet Union, yes you are wrong. The Soviet Union had already been bankrupted by President Ronald Reagan in the arms race of the 80’s, it just hadn’t hit them yet.
    Your approach to Bin Laden and the War on Terrorism is not only naive, but it is just foolish. The ONLY way to defeat these terrorists is on the Battlefield. We must stop them so that they cannot plan another attack on our soil. We must take the fight to them. You must understand something….This world is governed by the aggressive use of force, and more importantly that is all the Islamic militants understand. They don’t care about your creative strategies that include no military action what so ever, they don’t care about your “global solutions”, and they don’t care about immorality. You need to realize that not every argument can be solved in the boardroom or at a U.N. summit. They don’t want to talk they want to destroy us! WAKE UP.
    So yes. To once again answer your initial question. Yes, you are wrong. I’m sorry.

  133. Julian says:

    Sean, It seems like we agree that the popular media, be it conservative or liberal, is a poor source of information about important issues. Perhaps a approach that is more committed to scholarly methods for posing and analyzing questions would benefit us all. We’d be better off is we did away with our TVs and radios and spent more time in the libraries.

  134. Julian says:

    Sean, It doesn’t seem to me like the conservative news and talk radio really keeps the other media from getting away with anything. The audiences probably don’t overlap very much. Instead, it seems like they are trying to win the whooper contest and tell even bigger ones than the liberals do.

  135. Sean says:

    Now on to your other topic. Media bias. I hope you are ready for this, because it’s going to be harder hitting then my last one.
    First of all you need to figure out what your biases are, because you’ve mentioned Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who are Conservatively biased, and CNN and MSNBC who are liberally biased. You need to separate the two or people will think you don’t know the difference.
    Now, as for media biased, you’re right, all these stations have their biases. HOWEVER, the liberal stations in the mainstream media such as, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN have tried to pass themselves off for YEARS as being impartial, non-bias, and purely news with no slant.
    For the last 50 years the liberal media (who used to have a monopoly on ALL the news broadcasting) has spewed their biases, and many times out-and-out lied and said, “We are Impartial/non-bias media jounalists.” This was pathetically demonstrated with Dan Rather and his forged Memos (which 4 experts told CBS were fake, BEFORE they aired them). It was even more so evident with CBS’s investigation into themselves which was nothing more than a dog and pony show than it was an investigation.
    Conservative media; however, tells you that they are Conservative FIRST! There is a difference, and because you can’t see that, it demonstrates your in ability to admit that the Mainstream media and all of the other liberal media outlets are liars for not coming clean with their biases, preferences, and lies so many years ago. For example, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh, he tells you he is Conservative, he tells you that he is biased toward the conservative point of view. This is true for many other talk radio shows as well.
    This is also true for Fox News. Fox News is a conservative, not as much so, news outlet as well. Fox News; however, also has crossfire style debating platforms where conservative and liberal anchors will face off and debate both sides of issues such as Hannity and Colmes. When I ask you has Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw faced off with a conservative and debated (for more than 3 minutes of air time that is).
    But I digress. My point is this: ALL news reporting is biased in some way shape or form, because all news is reported by human beings with their own biases. But, not all news is a lie. There are truths and there are facts. These are what need to be sought. It is the facts that have been supressed by mainstream media for years, and now that Conservative news and talk radio is on the scene they can’t get away with what they used to get away with anymore.

  136. Sean says:

    Ok, FreeThinker no one mentioned Bill Clinton once, but since you asked…you’ll get it!! If you want to know that the fact that he was a cheatin’ whore was my only problem with him then the answer is NO.
    Let me see, where should I begin…Ehh hem, he was a swindler, he lied about all his forms of income, he made back alley deals with Tyson food Co., if you don’t know what that was it was called WhiteWater, he was a Draft Dodger (admittedly I might add), he smoked marijiuana but he didn’t inhale (nothing else needs be said), he gave us the largest tax increase in the history of the country and forced our economy to remain stagnant for almost ten years (2.2% growth rate), he was linked to many, MANY mysterious scandals while in the White House of which he had no explanation for: travelgate, FBI file gate (mis-use of FBI investigative resources), Vince Foster’s alleged suicide, he proposed and signed many worthless anti-gun laws which had NO effect, NO effect on reducing crime, these only restricted law abiding gun owners, he offered no military response when the twin towers were FIRST attacked in 1993, there was no response when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, or when our U.S. embassy’s around the world were attacked, he made huge cuts in military spending and crippled our militaries budget and means (this also included armoured humvee’s), he made huge cuts in our intelligence spending which blinded the CIA oversee’s which is why our intelligence is so poor today, ha, ha, ha (sorry I needed to catch my breath), he allowed top secret misslie information (and I’m an Aerospace Engineer so don’t F#$K with me on this one) to be leaked out of the country to our Communist friends the Chinese, he accepted illegal campaign contributions from John Huang (some say he’s who bought the technology), etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Is that enough of a list of serious problems that I have with your Golden Boy Bill Clinton and his illustrious legacy……..Should I continue?

  137. Julian says:

    Sean, Am I wrong to find it disturbing that the US has the blood of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (mostly women and children) on our hands now, that we borrow $229,000,000 a day for this war adding 100s of billions of $s to our already massive debt. This extreme situation that we are in worries me even more when I consider the fact that Iraq wasn’t even among the top 50 threats to US security prior to the US invasion. Are we going to topple all of the other countries that are even more serious threats to our security than Saddams Iraq was? Can we afford such an approach either in economic or moral terms? I think that a wiser strategy to take toward terrorism would have been to carefully avoid taking bin Laden’s bait. Bin Ladens system can defeat military superpowers for pennies on the dollar (recall how he drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy by luring them into a conflict in Afghanistan). His advantage is huge we are just giving him a target rich environment in which to kill American kids without even having to plot an attack on our soil. Its not even a fair fight. Terrorism (and more importantly, the sway that radical ideologists have over the minds of the disenfranchised) is not the sort of problem that has a military solution. Our survival will depend on our capacity to develop creative, intelligent, and subtle strategies that are based on an understanding of how radical ideologues (be they Islamist or of any other pursuasion) attract new believers in their cause. The brute force, faith-based, approach that our administration has adopted is not just immoral, it is not smart. We are doomed if our political leaders fail to devise and apply effective non-military approaches global problem solving.

  138. Julian says:

    BonnieM. You asked where one should go to get information. I know that journalist, because they are human, find it hard to set aside their personal opinions when they convey the news. But certain media outlets, such as Fox, the Washington Times and Regnery Publishing, for a few examples, are controlled (even owned) by individuals who are such unabashed partisans that every piece of information that they process is corrupted by ideology. Murdock (Fox) worked for Reagan, Regnery pays people to fabricate lies about any significant opposition to neoconservativism, and Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times. These are Rush Limbaugh’s primary information feeds, by the way. So what’s a person to do? Beware! And spend a lot of time at the library digging deep into the core of the issues. We also have to question our own assumptions continuously and value facts over ideology.

  139. FreeThinker says:

    Like you I do look at all the TV news sources and I read as many papers I can get my hands on. But the 100% unbiased you can get is CSPAN. Also when reading and watching all of this whether I agree with what they say or not I try to figure out if there is an angle. What do they have to benefit from providing the info to me. It seems that too few people are truly engaged with politics and thet do not critically think about the info provided. Critical thought and reading between the lines(whether you agree with the info or not) is the biggest weapon.

  140. Julian says:

    Just noticed Sean’s comment about me being democrate. Huh? Democrate or Republican is like Classic Coke or Coke. You said I should be careful about my assumptions regarding how you and W see the world (by the way, do you know the man? Does he tell you what is in his heart? Same question you asked me about Jesus applies to you and Bush you know.). Your assumption that I am a democrate is mistaken.

  141. Julian says:

    What people now call “christian” doesn’t actually follow the teachings of the historical Jesus. Contemporary american christianity is not grounded in the fundamental principles taught by Jesus – i.e, mercy, antimaterialism, serving the needy, selflessness.

  142. BonnieM says:

    Free Thinker, Where do you suggest we get information from? I found that if I watch/listen to Fox, MSNBC and CNN and read our daily paper, I can pretty well make up my own mind. But I think you have to have all of it to glean maybe a portion of the actual truth. But otherwise, where would you go for information?

  143. Julian says:

    You asked, would W be humbled in the presence of Jesus? Is he humbled in the presence of the weak and the poor. Jesus said that when we are in the presence of the weak and the poor, that we are in his presence. Bush seems to favor the company of the rich and the most powerful, not the Christ-like.

  144. Julian says:

    Sean. He did ask us to be his disciples and spread his message. The bible calls him the “Prince of Peace” and he himself said “blessed are the peacemakers.” Is Bush a peacemaker? I think Bush’s actions clearly show that his fundamental model of what it means to be a human being is diametrically opposed to the example of set by the “Prince of Peace.”

  145. FreeThinker says:

    I don’t think Julian is speaking for Jesus rather than interpretating his actions. Last I read the New Testament Jesus did not promote war, violence, greed, selfishness, lying, etc,(Wow that happens to be traits the Bush administration covets). Unfortunately most of this country is too busy letting Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. make their opinions for them. Do me a favor on BOTH sides of the fence look into the issues ON YOUR OWN, not at Fox News, not at NewsMax or Rush Limbaugh, or Air America, get the facts yourself. All of the above parties have a biased slant, if you don’t believe it you’re naive. And if you don’t think that your party, either Dem or Rep, does not have their share of liars and cheaters, again you are naive. Yes Clinton was a philanderer but is that you’re only beef with him. Honestly I could care less, that is an issue for him and his family to deal with, show me the negative effects of most of his policies and I will listen. Both sides need to quit being so blinded by their parties and look at the big picture.

  146. elise says:

    Also, Julian, Liberal in some countries are not the same as liberals in The U.S Same with conservatives. The countries liberal or conservatives are their views within their particular country.

  147. elise says:

    While I am on my soap box, I suppose I am more of a moderate than conservative. I do not agree with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in a lot of their comments.

  148. elise says:

    Julian, Jesus was about peace and love, but at the same time he ran the money changers out of the temple. He was not shy to do what he thought was right. He also said give to Caesear what is his & God what is his. You can twist the scripture to read almost anything you want to. But you have to be familiar with it all. You can’t just grab what you want. No one knows George Bush’s heart any more than I know yours, but if he prays for Gods guidance and has faith, cchances are God works thru him. It is surely a lot better (& I really hate bringing this up again, because I am so tired of hearing it but—-)”I did not have sex with that woman- Ms. Lewinsky”. And Sean —- Hoo ahh!!!!!

  149. Sean says:

    Are you trying to speak for Jesus and his political views? Did you know the man? Did he tell you he was a liberal (a term that was not even in use 2000 years ago)? Are you a spokesman for Jesus ?

    Are you trying to say that George Bush is not a God-fearing man, or that he wouldn’t be utterly humbled by the presence of Jesus? Or that I wouldn’t be? Do you know the man, or me, personally? Do you speak for us? Be REAL careful with your statements and assumptions. They are unfounded, unproven, and unsubstantiated.

    Question to all:
    With Julian’s comment, does anything else need be said to prove that the liberals today are living completely detached from reality due to their recent election losses? Or possibly that they are so arrogant that they think that Jesus himself was a member of their beloved but failing political party?

  150. Anonymous says:

    So what if Jesus was a liberal? As a Theology minor I believe Muhammed was probably a conservative, but that isn’t how either man’s followers vote in America now is it? The majority of muslims in this country vote liberal, and its pretty well known that most conservatives are christian. Doesn’t make a difference either way.

  151. Concerned American says:

    Hoo ahh!!! Well said my friend!

  152. Julian says:

    Jesus was a liberal. His life was about peace, the brotherhood of all humans, forgiveness, serving the weak. I don’t think he would be a welcome guest in the company of George Bush or contemporary conservatives.

  153. Sean says:

    One other thing, as you Liberals continue to fly out on the left wing fringe you will soon be Communists. In fact many of you are already there you’re just hiding under the guise of…”Democrats”. Let me pose this question, “How is Communism going to be good for THIS country.” In other words, “How is more and more extreme Liberalism going to be good for this country.” (Since you say that Extreme Conservatism leads to Naziism). That’s why you get offended when we call you liberals. You keep getting more and more extreme on the left and you’re going straight toward Communism.

    (This of course has been known and planned by many of the longtime liberals in politics for sometime; their problem now is that they’ve been exposed)

  154. Sean says:

    Are you really such an extreme liberal kook idiot that you are trying to compare Conservatism and the Republican party in THIS country to Islamic Terrorists and the Nazi’s.
    You’re just as bad as all the morons who think that Nuclear weapons in our hands are just as dangerous as in the hands of Iran and North Korea. This is exactly why your party has been destroyed and reduced to rubble. You no longer have a majority in Congress, you no longer have the White house, and you’re about to lose the Judicial Branch. This goes for you as well Chillliberal !! Keep swinging out on the fringe in left field, and Conservatives will forever control the policies in this country. You people still don’t understand why your losing elections.

    Can I get a Hoo Ahh from all the true Conservatives out there ?!

  155. Swampninja says:

    Lets see…we’re at war with the conservativism of the middle East (Islamic fundamentalism)…we defeated the peak of conservatism – Fascism – in WWII…so how could conservatism be bad in other people, but good in us?

  156. chillliberal says:

    your life is like a videogame…you think there is no coonsequences…

  157. tyler says:

    this site rocks my socks

  158. Conservative dude says:

    Heck yeah, biznatch!

  159. uhh ya says:

    this is so stupid

  160. Steve says:

    He could pass as a street bum!

  161. bettye fuqua says:

    why didnt they kill him while they had him face to face. they wanted him so bad so theyare going to put him in a undeclosed place where he will be safe what about our peole over there.

  162. Ken says:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *