"Journalists also find themselves navigating thin lines between personal bias and a modern obligation to not just report facts, but interpret them and define their meaning for the reading and watching public."

What would the poor dumb proles do without elite Journalists willing to explain the world to them. I mean who are you going to believe, Journalists or your lying eyes?

First he images of the soldiers dead.

Next, the images that should be shown to the public are those that show the people we are murdering over there as we talk about bringing freedom to them.

http://vitw.org/archives/720

Next, the images of the mass graves containing the victims of the tyrant we deposed.

No Bush is still on the throne he hasn't been deposed yet

Why is Saddam's killing worse than our killing?

Was killing done by Hitler worse than what was done to depose him?

Dictators R Us

By Noam Chomsky, AlterNet. Posted December 22, 2003.

Selective memory and a convenient 'doctrine of change' allows the US government to forget that it once supported tyrants like Saddam.

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally -- a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" -- fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career -- like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression -- and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss -- along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy. To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades -- weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent -- and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations.

Saddam was a piker when it comes to murder.

***

The great crimes of the twentieth century were committed not by money-grubbing capitalists but by dedicated idealists. Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were contemptuous of money. The passage from the nineteenth to the twentieth century has been a passage from considerations of money to considerations of power. How naive the cliché that money is the root of evil! The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.

Eric Hoffer

So what did Chomsky have to say about Hitler? Was he for or against? Or is it too soon to tell?

I'm assuming that Stalin was one of his idols.

read victor davis hanson @ victorhanson.com
losers

"I'm assuming that Stalin was one of his idols."

Why? Because it makes it easier for you not to read his writings?

That influential members of the Left had a blind spot for the evils of Soviet Russia is a travesty; however, it doesn't say much to our current conflict, or our reasons for being there. "Better than Hussein" is not exactly a rallying cry or a high standard.

Also, remember, the first person to mention Hitler in an argument automatically loses.

i see dead people.
and they're voting for dems

It is just easier to keep things simple. Come on, terrorists hate us because we are free, the Iraq war's only purpose was to spread freedom, gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, Noam Chomsky must love Stalin. Why look for complexities when you can break almost everything down into one line that supports your argument?

Funny to hear people say it's not logical to say you want something because it's a lesser evil than the other choice...but yet these same people cried out for people to vote Kerry because he was less evil than Bush...lovely :-D

Maybe...
But it is horrifying that people think it is OK for our country to kill whoever it wants as long as it is under the guise of freedom.

no, not horrifying. there is such a thing as right and wrong...not black and white...and right and wrong tends to be universal.
go kill babies now.

Saddam was a terrible dictator, but the Prince that Bush was holding hands last week with is much much worse and more of a threat.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RzJcJ5KH21kJ:www.jimpinto.com/enews/jan22-2005.html+wahabi+islam+message&hl=en&client=firefox-a
The Saudi syndrome
When you purchase gasoline, you might want to think about where some of that gas money you pay will ultimately be going.

America now imports well over half of the oil it consumes, and more than 50% of US consumption is in the form of motor vehicle fuels. Every barrel America imports, wherever it originates, helps push up the price received by Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter.

Saudi Arabia is the source of 15% of US imported oil, and it's low production costs allow it to reap a hefty profit. It now receives about $80 billion a year from oil exports. Part of that goes to government and private charities, amounting to billions of dollars a year. This helps to finance mosques and religious schools, preaching and teaching a fanatical variant of Wahabi Islam, the Saudi state religion. And Wahabi Islam definitively promotes the legitimacy of terrorist attacks. Indeed, 15 of the 19 people involved in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi government, itself under assault from Al Qaeda, is not directly financing terrorism. Since 9/11 they have responded to American pressure to control the flow of charitable funds to active terrorist groups. But what they still pay for, and what Saudi citizens and religious charities are obligated to contribute towards, is a worldwide network of mosques, schools and Islamic centers that proselytize the belligerent and intolerant variant of Wahabi Islam that is dominant in Saudi Arabia. As a result, the teachings of more humane and progressive Muslim leaders are losing ground in poorer countries like Indonesia and Pakistan.

There is no sinister Saudi conspiracy at work here. It's just what happens when huge amounts of oil money flow into an absolute monarchy that bases its legitimacy on puritanical militant Islam.

Saudi Arabia offers no pretense of political accountability, or transparent accounting. The more oil money that flows, the less pressure the Saudi royals feel to undertake the difficult political and economic reforms that could stop sowing the seeds of terrorism.

These anti-war posters are absolutely right. It's clear now that our Forefathers were very much wrong for fighting for freedom because people had to die to get it. Most certainly, the world is much better off living under the rule of kings/queens, dictators, and Russian Czars who flat-out kill people at whim for no good reason.

Yeah, I'd feel really good having one of these ex-hippie liberals running the country.

Actually it was called the REVOLUTIONARY war you stupid fuck, not the STATUSQUO War. If you want to talk Revolution, you would have been firmly on the side of the conservative loyalists who pandered to Britain's every need.

Oh, and don't forget that the only reason we won the Rev. War was because of the French! LMFAO

You conservatives are really dumb, anyone who actually thinks for themselves and envisions anything different than the stauts quo is a traitotr and wants communism. No most liberals don't want that . We do want a governement that obeys laws and upholds te constituion of the US though. I guess that's asking too much.

Hey you conservatives! What about that memo that was released today in the UK showing unequivocally that the US had always planned ot go to war in IRaq and was making evidence fit policy?

Read it here: UK discussed early plan to topple Saddam - Blair

Sun May 1, 2005 2:03 PM GMT+02:00

By Katherine Baldwin

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain discussed supporting the United States to bring about a change of government in Iraq eight months before the March 2003 invasion, Tony Blair said on Sunday.

But the prime minister, facing an election on Thursday in which the divisive war could cost him votes, denied suggestions his government took an early decision to topple Saddam Hussein.

His comments came in response to a leaked memo in a newspaper that said Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush were determined to oust Iraq's former leader as early as July 2002.

"I actually talked about regime change if it wasn't possible to get him (Saddam) to comply with international law," Blair said in a phone-in on British commercial radio stations.

Blair confirmed he discussed removing Saddam in a July 2002 top-level government meeting after the Sunday Times printed what it said were secret minutes of that meeting.

"Of course all the time what you are thinking is what happens if we can't do this in a peaceful way," Blair told BBC Television, when asked about the contents of the leaked memo.

"The idea we'd decided definitively for military action at that stage is wrong and disproved by the fact that several months later we went back to the United Nations to get a final resolution.

"If the U.N. resolution had been adhered to by Saddam then that would have been an end to it," he added.

The leaked document gave fresh ammunition to Blair's political opponents who accuse him of lying to the public and parliament over Iraq and of striking a pact with Bush to launch an invasion well before seeking U.N. backing.

The prime minister built his case for war on the basis Iraq's banned weapons were a threat and has said "regime chance" was never his aim.

Blair's opponents seized on the memo to support their attacks on his integrity but opinion polls show Blair's Labour party is likely to win a third term on Thursday, although its huge parliamentary majority is expected to shrink.

CASE FOR WAR "THIN"

According to the minutes, Blair spoke to his cabinet explicitly in terms of toppling Saddam.

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair is recorded as saying. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the case for war was "thin" because "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the minutes said.

Straw proposed giving Saddam an ultimatum to allow in U.N. weapons inspectors, provoking a confrontation that would "help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Britain's spy chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, fresh from a trip to Washington, had concluded that war was "inevitable" because "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action", and "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

Blair ordered his chief of defence staff, Sir Michael Boyce, to present him with war plans later that week, the minutes said.

"Was killing done by Hitler worse than what was done to depose him?"

If you have to ask, you're one of the many idiots around here who will just never get it.

killing is always wrong. That is what the Bible says. If you kill or condone killing no matter who is doing it you are a sinner and are going to hell.

"killing is always wrong. That is what the Bible says."

Yer jokin. right?

Or you haven't read the damn book.

Thou shalt not kill is a commandment from Jesus my lord and personal savior. Any killing is wrong always. I vote republican because I don't beleive in murdering unborn children and because President George W. Bush is a believer like I am. He is not perfect so he makes mistakes but he is our man. He upholds God's word in office and speaks truth to the evil-doers.

The Official 9-11 story is a fraud

The 9/11 Commission Report: An Elaborate Fiction
click for our mirror of the Report

On July 22, 2004, the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" , also known as the "9/11 Commission," published its final Report, the "9/11 Commission Report". The Report became a best-seller and was hailed in the corporate media as the definitive Report on the attacks. However, the Report is more accurately characterized as the definitive narrative of the official myth of 9/11. As David Ray Griffin points out in his scholarly book, The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions, the Report systematically excludes almost every fact that doesn't support the official story. 1
Omissions and Distortions

Most of what we document on this website has been omitted from the Commission Report, particularly the contents of the analysis section. Indeed, the omissions are so numerous they could fill a book, and do -- David Griffin's 339-page Omissions and Distortions. Here we list only some of the more egregious omissions, falsehoods, and contradictions in the Report. In the following we use 'Report' to refer to the entire Report including the Notes section.
Omissions

* The Report fails to acknowledge that no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fires.
* The Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story steel-frame skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack.
* The Report contains no mention of the interview in which the owner of Building 7 states that he and the Fire Department decided to "pull" Building 7 -- an apparent admission of a conspiracy to destroy the building and its contents.
* The Report fails to mention the rapid removal and recycling of the structural steel from the collapsed World Trade Center buildings, even to make excuses for it.
* The Report makes no mention of a statement by then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani to Peter Jennings indicating he had foreknowledge of the collapses: "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."
* The Report contains no mentions of eyewitness accounts of explosions preceding the collapse of South Towers.
* The Report fails to mention that George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principals in the company that had the contract to provide security for the World Trade Center, Stratesec, nor does it mention the company.
* The Report makes no mention of the fact that a new lessor took control of the World Trade Center complex just six weeks before the attack, obtained an insurance policy covering terrorist attacks, and successfully sued the insurance companies to obtain twice the multi-billion-dollar value of the policy.
* The Report repeats the list of 19 suspects identified by the FBI within days of the attack, while failing to mention that six of them reported themselves alive after the attack.
* The Report fails to mention any of the reports of behavior by the alleged hijackers before the attack that belie the official story that they were devout Muslims on a suicide mission for Allah.
* The Report fails to mention that the published passenger lists contained no Arab names -- a fact publicized by skeptics of the official story.
* The Report fails to ask why the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was not stopped by anti-aircraft missile batteries that presumably ring the building.
* The Report fails to mention that no credible footage of the Pentagon attack has been made public, despite public knowledge that the FBI seized footage of the attack from nearby businesses.
* The Report does not ask why the Secret Service did not obtain air cover for the President's motorcade from the Sarasota school to the airport, nor for Air Force One, which took off at about 9:54, until about 11:10.
* The Report avoids mentioning several reports that government officials and business leaders received warnings and avoided targets of the attacks, including:
o A warning by the FBI advising Attorney General John Ashcroft to avoid flying on commercial airlines.
o The Report that Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans the evening before the attack.
o The cancellation of plans by Arial Sharon to attend an event in New York City on 9/11/01.
o A warning to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to avoid flying.
o The grounding of Salman Rushdie by Scotland Yard.
* The Report avoids mentioning a warning received by employees of Odigo hours before the attack.
* The Report does not mention that letters with weaponized anthrax were sent to the two most powerful senators attempting to slow the passage of the 9/11/01 attack-predicated USA PATRIOT Act.
* The Report states that the Commission was "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks," but fails to mention that it makes no attempt to meet its charter.

Falsehoods

* The Report's Notes state: "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped." In fact, the core structures were comprised of bundles steel columns numbering 47 and having outside dimensions of 16 by 36 inches.
* The Report states that the "South Tower collapsed in ten seconds," when it actually took about 15 seconds. While one might expect that the Commission would overstate rather than understate the collapse time, the fact that the Commission did not even consider that a collapse time within 1 second of the vacuum free-fall time of 9.2 seconds a problem for the official explanation is evidence that the Commission would endorse that explanation no matter what the facts.
* Regarding the failure to move George W. Bush from the known location of the Sarasota classroom, the Report states that "No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing." Yet, according to evidence assembled by David Griffin, the Secret Service has open lines to the FAA, which thought that as many as 11 planes had been hijacked. 1
* The Report states: "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11." (The Report repeats the assertion three times.) Yet media reports, such as the USA Today article entitled "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" describe pre-9/11 NORAD drills involving hijacked jetliners crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 2
* The Report states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states

7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION

The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan. 3

* To address the charge that
Saudi nationals were flown out of the country before the post-9/11 flight ban was lifted, the Report states: "we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001." In fact national airspace was only open to commercial airliners on a case-by-case basis on September 13, 2001. It was not until September 15th that the skies were opened to general aviation (privately-owned aircraft). 4 Yet the Lear Jet that flew Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky on September 13th was a private plane. 5

Contradictions

* The Report notes that Hani Hanjour's pilot application was rejected, and that he was a "terrible pilot," on the one hand, but asserts that he was "operation's most experienced pilot," and piloted Flight 77 through a 330-degree spiral dive maneuver, on the other.
* The Report explains the suicide terrorists chose not to target a nuclear power plant because they "thought a nuclear target would be difficult because the airspace around it was restricted, making reconnaissance flights impossible and increasing the likelihood that any plane would be shot down before impact." (p 245) It fails to apply the same logic to their targeting of the Pentagon, which, being the heart of the US military, is presumably even better defended than a nuclear power plant.
* The Report addresses the question of why George W. Bush remained in the publicly-known location of the Sarasota school until 9:35 AM -- a half hour after the second Tower strike -- by relating that Bush "told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis," (p38) and that the Secret service "told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door." (p39) The Report implicitly accepts these explanations as satisfactory thereby implying that for Bush to have taken any less than a half hour to leave the school would have required him to display an excited reaction and to "run out the door."

This list only touches on some of the more obvious omissions from the Report. Even Griffin's book -- the most thorough critique of the Report to date -- is far from exhaustive.
The 9-11 Research Mirror of the Commission Report

The 9/11 Commission Report is published in its entirety on the 9/11 Commission website. However, the site appears to be designed to make it difficult to analyze the Report. In particular, there is apparently no easy way to search the text of the Report for keywords -- a requirement to quickly discover what is missing -- because of the following design features.

* Each of the Report's sections -- which includes 13 chapters, appendices, a preface, and notes -- is provided as a separate HTML document. Performing a search thus requires a tedious traversal of each of the score of documents, given that the Report is not provided in the form of an aggregate HTML document.
* The complete Report is provided as PDF document, but is a hefty 7.4 megabytes in size, and many PDF viewers don't have a word search feature.
* The Search tool searches the entire site, which includes a large body of hearing transcripts many times the size of the Report itself. There is no obvious way to restrict the search to the Report only.
* The website's use of the base HTML tag breaks spiders, making it more difficult for researchers to download the Report's HTML as a whole in order to analyze it.
* The Table of Contents pages do not link into the sections within chapters.

Due to these deficiencies in the now-frozen version of the Report published on the Commission's website, we have posted a local mirror of the report with corrections here . The mirror preserves the Report's content while assembling all its parts except the notes into a single HTML document. The notes occupy a second document because of their size. The Table of Contents is consolidated into the main document. Thus, using the mirror, you can search the entire Report by simply browsing two HTML documents.

In addition to these changes to the Report's organization, we have linked phrases in the Report's introduction, such as independent, bipartisan, full and complete account, preparedness, and immediate response to the attacks, to pertinent pages of 9-11 Research.

"killing is always wrong. That is what the Bible says."

"Any killing is wrong always. I vote republican because I don't beleive in murdering unborn children and because President George W. Bush is a believer like I am. He is not perfect so he makes mistakes but he is our man. He upholds God's word in office and speaks truth to the evil-doers."

It seems pretty clear both of these were posted by the same person, and there are two big problems with this person's logic: a basic failure to understand what the Bible really says and a huge internal contradiction.

The Bible never says "Thou shalt not kill" -- that's a mistranslation of what the commandment actually says. The commandment says "Thou shalt not murder." There's a big difference between "kill" and "murder". The Bible makes it clear that killing is not only justified sometimes, but even required. The Bible explicitly requires abortion in cases where a mother's life would be endangered by carrying a fetus to term. The Bible explicitly commands people to kill in self-defense if that is the only way to save their lives. The Bible also explicitly commands men to go to war under specific circumstances, with the expectation that they will have to kill the enemy. And the Bible is full of stories of people fighting in wars with God's blessing -- if you can't think of any, you've obviously never spent any time reading the Book. So clearly the Bible does NOT say that killing is always wrong.

As for the huge internal contradiction...well, if you think killing is always wrong, why the hell would you support a president who has led us into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and is engaging in nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea and Iran? How can you say that "killing is always wrong...the Bible tells me so", then say you support a president who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people in wars, and that you support him because he is a God-fearing Christian who shares your values, including that "killing is always wrong...the Bible tells me so"? Clearly, Bush DOESN'T think that killing is always wrong.

And as long as you're touting that "culture of life" bullshit, please explain to me how Bush favors life when he is opposed to sex education of any sort other than "abstinence only", when other kinds of sex education have been shown to reduce incidences of all kinds of STDs, many of which lead to death and/or infertility. And why he is opposed to stem cell research, which may have the potential to cure hundreds of diseases that kill millions of people every year. Or why he is opposed to making medical care affordable for all Americans. Or why he is quick to commit American forces to protect our oil interests, but not to prevent genocide in places like Darfur. Or why he presided over more executions as governor of Texas than any other governor in American history.

For the record, I supported the wars if Afghanistan and Iraq, and though I am pro-choice, I don't like the use of abortion for routine birth control. I also favor use of the death penalty, though not nearly as widely as Bush does, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of euthanasia and the idea of letting even a person in a permanent vegetative state starve to death for lack of nutrition (though I think if Terri Schiavo did tell her husband she wouldn't want to live like that, her husband should have had to the right to carry out her wishes without state interference). But don't tell me that Bush and evangelical Republicans like him make their decisions out of respect for human life. The only respect I've seen for human life from Bush, Frist, DeLay, and the other Republican leaders is for the lives of wealthy, influential Republicans.

Noam Chomsky is an idiot the day I listen to a linguist dictate foreign policy is the day I let a soldier try to teach me "proper" english

Noam Chomsky is an idiot because you don't agree with him? I guess it's easier to dismiss things than to think about them.

Go put your head in a toilet, preferrably one filled with 3 day old diarrhea you stupid fucker.

" If you kill or condone killing no matter who is doing it you are a sinner and are going to hell. "

Easy with the insults. I'm a sinner. You're a sinner. Good thing we have a 'friend of sinners'.