LIBERAL MORONS RULE!

Liberals are so entertaining to watch. They are such f*cks. Where's all your brilliant ideas for ending terrorism? Where's your self responsibility to stand up to the perversion, Marxism, and the "War on God"? You all don't have a clue to the true powers that are in our country filling your minds with this Socialist/Marxist bullsh*t!

For instance, Ann Coulter brought to national attention how Liberals have literally rewritten history books! It's true! Remember learning about Mccarthy causing a red scare and making everyone think Communists were everywhere? They blamed it on Mccarthy! In reality he was a true American who called out Soviet spies in our own congress! The Collin Powell position of the 40-50's was filled by a Soviet Spy Alger Hiss.(there were more too) Hiss whispered in the ear of Roosevelt in Yalta. He also caused us to lose China to Communism. The Democrats defended Alger Hiss and railroaded Mccarthy. History books preach the opposite. Don't believe my facts. Look up the Venona Project which was declassified in 1995 proving Mccarthy right in all cases.

My point, don't believe our "free media", it is truelly slanted to the left. In fact there was an article printed in the Hindustan Times out of Kuwait which said that 60 million dollars worth of chemical payload was seized from individuals trying to escape from Iraq. Not to mention plenty of soldiers who say they have found chemical drums 8 feet deep in ground filled with chemical agents, but never a mention here in the states. In fact everything is much better in Iraq than being reported.

In Iraq, power is back to higher output than ever during Saddam's reign. A Gallup poll yesterday said that 70% of Bagdahd residents interviewed didn't want the U.S. troops to leave anytime soon. Schools, colleges, hospitals are almost all back to service. An Iraqi Army is being formed with trained soldiers already working. Police, a new currency, and freedom has been given to the people. It took 7 years for the U.S. to leave Japan after WW2, we are only 8 months in!

If they don't find weapons of Mass Destruction anytime soon you must remember several things:

1. We gave them a month and a half to get ready for the invasion, HIDE, OR SHIP OUT WMD

2. How hard is it to hide a 2-liter bottle of Anthrax in a country the size of California?

3. Syria, Iran and Jordan are all harborers of terrorists and would happily import them knowingly or not

4. They found 2 biological trucks

5. Bush never said they for sure had them, he simply stated that Saddam has used them before, hides

gotta go, ill write more later

Look folk don't always agree. Some folk believe we gotta rule the world with military might and some believe we gotta rule the world with diplomacy. but i think the whole of the USG agrees on one thing...we gotta rule the world.

Fact is I'd love to live in Dennis Kucinich's world. A world where our leaders worked agreements and diplomacy as the only means of solving the problems we face. I don't wanna live in a world ruled by people who make their living on the death of others. I'm voting liberal not because I believe in socialistic ideas. I'm voting liberal because I don't believe war is a viable means of protection. We have to build bridges not blow them up.

And, I'm sorry you're scared. I mean, it's understandable, but don't use that fear against the innocents of the world. Not one Iraqi was on those hijacked planes and we took the fight to them--creating more reasons for folk in Arab nations to become terrorist. We create our own enemies with our bankrupt policy.

You can't lump everyone into one little box and tie it up and stick a moron lable on it. You have to learn to respect everyone's point of view even when you don't agree. Meet me at the polls, cause that's what democracy is all about.

[Edited on 14-10-2003 by Saphronia]

And, don't evade the censor with wildcards anymore or I'll edit your posts to make you look like a Jane Fonda worshipper, putz! I'll do it, too, if for nothing else than just a laugh!

1. We gave them a month and a half to get ready for the invasion, HIDE, OR SHIP OUT WMD

Wrong. WMDs were subject to disarmament programs, destruction, and UN inspections for 13 years, with and without co-operation. The whole country was under surveillance including by satellite. It was not possible to make significant movements of deployable WMDs at all. The Bush admin screwed up totally.

2. How hard is it to hide a 2-liter bottle of Anthrax in a country the size of California?

Very hard to store it in the right conditions. The US is at more risk from its own approved bilogical weapons programs. A specimen of anthrax is not a WMD, at all, never has been.

3. Syria, Iran and Jordan are all harborers of terrorists and would happily import them knowingly or not

This does not seem to make much sense, but for the purpose of clarity it might be of interest to know, are they importing terrorists or WMDs? Think again about where they import weapons from, and check the mirror.

4. They found 2 biological trucks

The famous weather balloon labs yet again!

5. Bush never said they for sure had them, he simply stated that Saddam has used them before, hides

No, only other officials, including Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld in their testimony to the UN and others labelled the precise locations of readily deployable WMDs, with the quantities in each specific site. But the whole Bush admin realised and continues to realise the consequences of #ing up so badly.


Not many questions of utility here as far as I can see.

[Edited on 14-10-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

McCarthy may have been right on a COUPLE of points, but he also ruined countless innocent lives.

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by groingrinder]

How do liberals intend on ending terrorism? Well, the biggest case of terrorism wasn't even real terrorism if you had been following this message board. It was setup to start military action by the very U.S. government you love so dearly.

The best way to end "real" terrorism is to stop inciting it. Stop invading muslim countries under false pretenses such as Iraq. Its that simple.

I'm also not a liberal, I'm an independent.

What exactly is the Liberals goal? When exactly will they shut up and be satisfied?

The mere fact that you people think the U.S.A. had something to do with 9/11 shows just how off your rocker you are.

The one liberal is right that the U.N. had placed resolutions aagainst Iraq. 14 in fact. The only problem is that they never enforced them, what good would a 15th resolution or more half baked inspections do? There were minders there, tons of Iraqi scientists who say they were shipped, hidden or ready to create at moment's notice. Plus we've all heard the intercepted phone calls talking about the WMD, ones where Iraqi scientists are discussing hiding or cleaning up WMD.

The moron with the skull as your icon, Mccarthy didn't ruin a single life. The people he called out ALL turned out to be Soviet spies or sympathizers. Liberal textbook rewritting has caused you to believe that cr*p.

[Edited out by SimonGray]

I mean, look at the site you losers are on. Above top Secret, between UFOs, bigfoot, and Loch Ness, I enjoy Bush Bashing! It's a joke!

We are in a War on Terror. We will never totally destroy it, but we can make a huge dent (which we already have). From Sept 2001, Bush has said that whereever there are terrorists, we will work witht the governments to stop them. Those countries that harbor, aid, or support terrorists organizations will be considered the enemy. I totally agree with him. What are you waiting for? It to happen again? Fundamental Islam does not sit down at the negotiating table or discuss peaceful resolutions. They have one purpose. To kill every Christian and Jew in this world! Don't you remember Osamas list of demands: #1 convert to Islam or die as an infidel. I don't know about you, but my Christianity has a problem with doing that, hehe.

It is proven fact that Saddam funded the Palestinian Jihad as well as Hamas.

It is proven fact that Baath Party officials have met with Al-Queda and discussed terrorists operations as well as future funding.

It is proven fact that Saddam gassed 500,000 of his own people (Kurds) on T.V. for all to see.

It is proven fact that Saddam had torture chambers, mass gravesites, tree shredders to kill people, acid baths, and didn't mind his sons f*cking brides on their wedding day and then killing them. This paragraph only lightly touches the horrible things he did.

It is proven fact that Saddam had huge oil deal with the French and the Russians. Makes Chirac look like the GUY IN IT FOR OIL! In fact to support this, Chirac had dealt over billion in goods to Saddam over the past year AGAINST U.N. SANCTIONS!

Proven fact that Saddam publicly called for the destruction of U.S. and has had his hand very close to several terrorists attacks on American interests. Notsaying he was directly involved, but he knew about them happening somehow! His son wrote an article before Sept. 11th in the Iraqi newspaper describing how soon "that Frank Sinatra song" would bring pain to Americans.

Proven fact that Saddam put a bounty out to kill Bush Sr. (our PRESIDENT! at the time)

Proven Fact that Saddam broke all 14 of the resolutions the U.N. passed but never enforced. Proving that the U.N. is a worthless organization built for a different era.

Proven fact that Saddam's armies broke the 1991 ceasefire over 70 times by firing at our planes in the no-fly zone! A zone setup to protect the Kurds from mass slaughter again.

Listen, Saddam proved time and time again that he was interested in making, acquiring, using WMD on the Western civilizations, how can any country just watch him progress?

Yes we should have finished the job in 1991. Iraqis rose up and took over a majority of Iraq but we never sent in the Apaches to help finish. As a result thousands of supporters were killed, seperated, tortured, imprisoned, or had ears chopped off. The U.N. was the driving force behind our retreat yet again! Of course it will take a while to get Iraqis to believe that we are there to stay for good. Even though a Gallup poll from 2 days ago (a liberal polling co. in most cases) said that over 70% (of 3000) interviewed in Bagdadh didn't want the U.S.A. to leave anytime soon. There was a "human shield" named Rev. Kenneth Joseph from Canada or U.S. that went to Iraq prior to war. He found out that the people in Iraq wanted the U.S.A. to come help, to "start the bombing".

You must understand that the press, media, entertainment, and music in the U.S.A. is almost all liberal. Washington Post, NY TImes, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC are all guilty. In fact they love to talk about the quagmyer of Iraq, when in reality there is a ton of good news that doesn't get reported, only the bad. It took us seven years to leave Japan after WW2. That is how long it took to become stable. After just a month and continuing today the liberal news media was reporting about the "awful rebuilding plan", which was absolutely NOT TRUE!

The only way to calm down the Middle East is to drop democracy in there. Did you know 2 democracies have never had a war. About 18 of 20 most dangerous spots on Earth is involving Muslims! Wahabiism teaches the destruction of Jews and Christians wherever they may reside.

Democracy is working in Qatar. It can work in Iraq, and is. The reason so many fundamentalists are flocking to Iraq to fight us is because they know how important it is to our fight on Terror. Iran, Syria, and Pakistan are no better and the U.N. and the world should come down hard on them. They support and harbor terrorists to this day! We are having problems controlling the borders inbetween the countries. If Saddam had WMD, they probably traveled across these borders or is buried deep under Iraq.

There was a gravesite that looked suspicious about three weeks ago. They dug and never found bodies. However, at 8 feet deep they found 50 gallon drums of chemicals. The area was roped off, soldiers were quarantined, and the news media decided to cover the protests by Baath members up the street (so to speak).

How about the report out of Hindustantimes.com (Kuwait) that said that several guys were caught smuggling 60 million dollars worth of chemicals out of Iraq? Where was the reporting on that? I'm sure the Pentegon is waiting for 100% proof to release it, but where are the free press? They never wait for proof of bad news.

One reason. To have a democrat win the presidency. The democrats would rather see our economy flounder (by fillibustering) than try and come up with good ideas. They are worried about replacing Bush, and that is it. I hate treasonous actions such as this!

The economy is recovering too, but the news doesn't do a good job of reporting that. Nor do they ever mention that the downturn in our economy happened in Clinton's last year as president. Main;y because of the collapse of the technology(internet) sector.

Clinton is looked at as a great president by you morons and the morons in the press. In fact, he was the recipient of a booming enterprise called the internet, which people found out was harder to make money with than they originally thought. Besides that, Clinton was hard at work SELLING OFF NATIONAL SECRETS AND TECHNOLOGY that our country had worked hard to protect for generations. Clinton sold supercomputers and nuclear knowledge to North Korea and China. As a result the Koreans are trying to build Nukes and China NOW has the capability to hit the U.S.A. with ICBMs. Proven yesterday by their launch into space. Clinton allowed himself to be blackmailed by the North. Republicans don't give in. You must understand that North Korea threatens the world every 20 years or so in order to feed their people. N.K. builds up their military arms so much that they don't have the money to feed their own people. So they blackmail us. Just Bush won't give in, and I'm proud of him again for it.

This fundamental Islamic hatred for Jews and Christians has gone on for centuries. In fact after Israel was formed BY THE WORLD in the 40's, instantly they were under invasion by Muslim countries. In 1967 Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were built up on their border again, ready to invade yet again. Israel intelligently attacked the forces accumulated on their border (their other choice was self-destruction). Against all odds they prevailed over the heavily armed Muslims creating the areas we now know of Golan Heights, West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Israelis have the right to defend themselves! U.S.A. has the right to defend itself. This War on Terror is the only way to defend against another 9/11.

The major problems in this country are simple. Secure our borders, kick all the illegal immigrants out, announce English as official language, save Christianity from being outlawed, get some self-responsibility and drop all this "Political Correctness" crap which has made us all superficial, profile (if 98% of terrorists are 18-25 yrs old, Muslim, and male then you should be looking for exactly that, searching nuns doesnt help just makes lines slower), all visitors get background checks, we destroy the socialist/Marxist movement in this country (not so easy), and you preserve our culture. We all want the same things. A happy life with family and friends where we can make a living and are equal (not affirmitive action equal, but really equal) to everyone else.

Study, use common sense, and you'll see that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, fighting for justice in the world and a peaceful existence.

[Edited on 15-10-2003 by SimonGray]

Your real name wouldn't happen to be Condoleeza Rice, would it?

edit:

I also want to add that everything you posted has NOTHING to do with the reasons for the U.S. going to war in Iraq. The U.S. has never, ever cared about murderous evil dictators before. We didn't even execute Hirohito after WWII. In fact, we let him go and allowed that bugger to come over to play around in Disneyland in the 70s.

The terrorist ties you mention are worthless speculation and again, nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01.

If you really think the U.S. is going after terrorist countries, ask yourself why we haven't gone after Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the supposed hijackers on 9/11/01 were from...Saudi Arabia.

[Edited on 15-10-2003 by heelstone]

Your real name wouldn't happen to be "Conforming Moron" would it?






Liberalism is Communism in slow motion -

Conforming to what? This is fringe stuff we go on about. The only person conforming to what is reported is you (well, and a few others here).

[Edited on 15-10-2003 by heelstone]

After reading that last long post again I think I can safely say,
Welcome back Freemason


I'm just awaiting TC's return to this thread and hopefully he'll keep his promise .

[Edited on 15-10-2003 by Fry2]

I'm with Fry2. Any less of a response from TC would be unacceptable.

Friend...you seriously need to lay off the Faux News. You have any idea how many other despots there are in the world?

The more pertinent question is...why are you here? You wouldn't happen to be a Freeper?

Ahh, bummer
Simon edited out the part I wanted TC to see.

No fun for us I guess

I can't believe you quoted Ann "The Man" Coulter. Well, I will give you this don't trust the meida since they lie, particularly Faux News...

"Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is? Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong.

"The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Thanks for proving my point. You site Washington Post, one of the liberal medias I spoke of.

I sited Hindustantimes, not Fox News. The reason you conformists hate Fox News so much anyways is because of all the liberal press in this country. You guys aren't the fringe!! HAHA you are conforming liberals with the same propaganda that the liberal press (mainstream press) feeds us all! You are more mainstream than a conservative will ever be.

I am here because I enjoy defending this great nation, and listening to the redundant crap you liberals spray. It's ALL THE SAME! It's fun and hip to rip on the government, I did it when I was a kid too! But I grew up, studied, researched, check 10's of news sites from all over the world daily.

I haven't heard a single legit argument yet from any of ya!

I cite the Washington Post because it is a reputable newspaper---not a "liberal" newspaper. If I were to check an overseas paper, I would check the BBC or the Financial Times.

Haha. That is how stupid you are! Even liberals admit that the Washington Post is liberal. The BBC is extremely liberal too! Keep going dumb*ss!

Since you liberals never take the time to read the right-sided view of things (unlike the way I am reading your crap), here is Ann's response to the left's blatent attacks on her. THEY ARE SIMPLY AFRAID OF HER! She has taken on the liberal role of trashtalking, and you guys can just dish it out but can't take it!

RESPONSE TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF EDWARD NAWOTKA FOR PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY

QUESTION: FRANKEN CLAIMS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS FALSEHOODS IN YOUR BOOK, ESPECIALLY BURIED IN THE FOOTNOTES. . . . WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERRORS, YOU, THE PUBLISHER, OR BOTH?

I see we're off to a good start! In your interview with Al Franken, after suggesting that some readers may want Franken to run for president, you ask him hardball questions like:

-- "It's got to be a little grating to see your book on the same New York Times bestseller list as the Ann Coulter book."

-- "You fact checked Ann Coulter's book and found a lot of inconsistencies, outright lies, and quotes that are taken out of context. Who is responsible for those kinds of errors, the author or the editors?"

-- "How should booksellers deal with this?"


Help Us Out!
We're looking for videotaped copies of any and all of Ann's television appearances for a documentary about her. If you can help, e-mail Patrick at acdoc@verizon.net.
Treason




Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War..., Coulter
.

Sponsors
OtherSingles.com
Find a single conservative free!
Annoy a Liberal!
Peace Through Superior Firepower shirts

Start Advertising Now
.

E-Mail List




You ask me questions like these:

-- "[W]ho is ultimately responsible for the errors [in your book], you, the publisher, or both?"

-- "What gives--was this an honest mistake or malfeasance as he suggests?"

-- "Why all the name calling?"

Apparently, Ed, it never occurred to you that Franken's allegations of errors in my book -- or "outright lies" as you put it -- are false.

It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists. One crackpot argument after another is shot down -- but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.

So before responding to the two alleged "lies" you cite from Franken -- the source of all wisdom -- I shall run through a few of the alleged "lies" from Franken's book that I have already been asked to respond to -- and which have now been dropped by the Coulter hysterics as they barrel ahead to the next inane charge.

FRANKEN'S VERY FIRST CHARGE AGAINST ME IS THAT I TOLD A REPORTER FROM THE OBSERVER THAT I WAS "FRIENDLY" WITH FRANKEN, WHEN IN FACT, WE ARE NOT "FRIENDLY."

Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as I barely know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop -- the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I've ever heard of.

I don't hear about this "lie" so much anymore.

FRANKEN HYSTERICALLY ACCUSES ME OF "LYING" FOR CALLING MY "ENDNOTES," "FOOTNOTES" IN INTERVIEWS ON MY BOOK.

Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically "endnotes," not "footnotes." Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post and the rest of the universe -- all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as "FOOTNOTES." Also God, for inventing the concept of "colloquial speech."

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

FRANKEN CLAIMS I COMPLAIN THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T GET ON TV ENOUGH.

Inasmuch as I am on TV a lot, this would be an hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book Slander -- which Franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb -- would have been a good place to make that point if I wanted to make it. Slander contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on TV enough. What I say is: "Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans are 'from the right' polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth."

By the way, I also say: "The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." Franken's absurd description of my point proves it.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

I CLAIM EVAN THOMAS'S FATHER WAS THE SOCIALIST PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, NORMAN THOMAS.

Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas's father -- without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in Slander -- and cited one million times by liberals as a "LIE." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

I INCORRECTLY CLAIMED DALE EARNHARDT'S DEATH WAS NOT MENTIONED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NYT THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH.

In my three bestselling books -- making the case for a president's impeachment, accusing liberals of systematic lying and propagandizing, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, and detailing 50 years of treachery by the Democratic Party -- this is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication.

CONGRATULATIONS LIBERALS!!!

The Columbia Journalism Review was crowing about this great victory over Ann Coulter a year ago. A search of "coulter" and "earnhardt" on Google turns up over 1,000 hits. Now Franken dedicates another two pages in his book to it. I believe this triumph of theirs has been sufficiently revisited by now. At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine ( Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty).

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

FRAZIER MOORE, A FANTASIST FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, WROTE AN ARTICLE ACCUSING ME OF USING "ROUTINELY SLOPPY" RESEARCH AND "CONTRIVED" FACTS. LIKE YOU, THE AP FANTASIST TREATS FRANKEN AS THE SOURCE OF ALL WISDOM, CITING ONE KILLER EXAMPLE FROM FRANKEN:

"Here's one: On pages 265-266, Coulter blasts New York Times writer Thomas Friedman for opposing racial profiling in a December 2001 column. She quotes (and credits) several passages that seem to back up her complaint. But it turns out that Coulter misappropriated Friedman's words in a way that has nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column, as anyone who reads it will discover. His column actually drew the less-than-startling conclusion that a new age of terrorism threatens our personal safety and our free society."

This is what is known as "bicycle accident reporting." I defy anyone to explain what head-injury boy is trying to convey in his crucial, accusatory sentence: "Coulter misappropriated Friedman's words in a way that has nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column."Huh? The AP could throw a deck of cards out the window and wait to see who picks up the four of clubs to find someone who writes better than Frazier Moore.

But as long as I'm already breaking my rule about not responding to meritless, overwrought attacks, I'll go for broke and break my rule about not responding to gibberish. Apparently, head-injury-boy here is very upset about how I characterize a Friedman column and it has something or other to do with racial profiling.

In the column at issue, titled "Fly Naked,"Friedman spends 6 of 10 paragraphs discussing airport security after 9-11 and concludes that flying naked is the only solution, because, inter alia: "It's much more civilized than racial profiling." I wrote: "New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman sniffed that racial profiling was not 'civilized.'" I'm really trying to grasp the lie in that statement, but I don't see it.

Incidentally, contrary to head-injury boy's characterization, only four paragraphs at the end of the Friedman column discuss "personal safety and our free society" -- as anyone who reads it will discover! I salute the AP's unorthodox affirmative action program, but they might want to assign reporters who are not developmentally disabled to write the articles accusing me of "sloppy" research and "contrived" facts.

I haven't heard much about this "lie" since the AP article came out and normal people took the trouble to look up Friedman's column and post it on the internet.

Now you spring two all-new alleged "outright lies" on me. I shall respond to these two, and then I'm through. Henceforth, I shall rely on sensible people to see that I have answered the liberal hate groups' first 17 rounds of indignant charges against me. If they had a better example out there, we would have heard it before the 18th round.

First, you say: "AT ONE POINT [FRANKEN] ACCUSES YOU OF HAVING TAKEN A QUOTE FROM A BOOK REVIEW QUOTING A BOOK (P. 14 OF FRANKEN'S BOOK) TO ARGUE YOUR POINT. DO YOU FEEL THIS IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT YOU WROTE? AN ACCURATE USE OF A QUOTE? IF NOT, THEN WHY? IF YES, THEN WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERRORS, YOU, THE PUBLISHER, OR BOTH?"

I'm not sure I grasp the accusation here and I'm sure you do not. I wrote: "For decades, the New York Times had allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages." Among the quotes I cited, one came from a New York Times book review. The quote made a loose association between Nazis and Christians. New York Times book reviews are printed in the pages of the New York Times. The Times allowed that quote to run in its pages. How else, exactly, are you suggesting I should have phrased this, Ed?

Second, you say: "LIKEWISE, [FRANKEN] ACCUSES YOU OF SLOPPY RESEARCH, IN SO FAR AS YOU APPEAR TO HAVE MISSED A NUMBER OF NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES CITING SUCH THINGS AS SPEECHES BY JESSE JACKSON. WHAT GIVES--WAS THIS AN HONEST MISTAKE OR MALFEASANCE AS HE SUGGESTS?

It was neither, but thanks for asking. I wrote: "In an upbeat message delivered on British TV on Christmas Day, 1994, Jesse Jackson compared conservatives in the U.S. and Great Britain to Nazis: "In South Africa, the status quo was called racism. We rebelled against it. In Germany, it was called fascism. Now in Britain and the U.S. it is called conservatism.' The New York Times did not report the speech."

The New York Times did not, in fact, report the speech. Franken does not say otherwise. My guess is -- and this is just a stab in the dark -- Franken doesn't say otherwise because he can't say otherwise, inasmuch as . . . THE NEW YORK TIMES DID NOT REPORT THE SPEECH. What Franken says is that my search method was faulty -- though, somehow, it still managed to produce the truth! (To wit: The New York Times did not report the speech.)

Among my searches, I searched the New York Times database for all of December, 1994 and January 1995 for: "Jesse Jackson and Germany and fascism and South Africa."(In my footnotes, I often give my readers clear descriptions of some of the Lexis-Nexis searches I ran -- something, as far as I know, no other writer does.)

Franken does not mention the lines I had just quoted from Jackson's speech -- you know, the one that was NOT reported in the New York Times -- but refers to it only as a "controversial speech."He then acts incredulous that I would run a search for "Jesse Jackson and Germany and fascism and South Africa," as if I tossed in the terms "Germany""fascism"and "South Africa"for no reason whatsoever. To my observation that this search turned up no documents, he says sarcastically: "Well, yeah."

To borrow a line from a trained journalist: What gives, Ed? Was this an honest mistake or malfeasance?

That's not entirely true...we've fostered and brought many of them to power.....oops!

Here's the solution to terrorism...

Section off a portion of Isreal. (and not disconnected pieces). Call it Palestine. No bargaining, no discussing. Just frickin' do it. Next, you say, "Ok, you wanted your own nation, here you go. You'll get nothing more but what you can get from the world, or for yourselves...so you better not go ticking everyone off..." To the "Palestinians" living outside this zone...you say, "Ok, here's your chance to move. You stay and play nice...great...welcome. You stay and start this terrorist crap again..and you're deported to Palestine." Now the Palestinians have their homeland, for better or worse..the rest of the Arabs can't bitch about it....and we can all move on....

Al-Qaida May Try Attack on U.S. in Iraq



Al-Qaida May Try Attack on U.S. in Iraq

Hot off the news wire for ya putz..