Remember Jack, a tower of righteousness, stiffly waving off the liberation of Iraq?

We consider that all military action [in Iraq] not endorsed by the international community, though, in particular, the Security Council, was both illegitimate and illegal, is illegitimate and illegal. And we have not changed our view on that.

Of course, Jack being Jack, scil., quintessentially French, was also "delighted" (weakly translated by the Beeb as "satisfied") by the outcomes of all the Allied criminality.

Or have any forgotten the soft boneless hand of Dom ("A Man") de Villepin, former French global lickspit, limply extended dripping with syrupy sugar-free friendship?

Our hand is held out to our American friends ... We have shown our constant willingness to put forward ideas to our American friends since the start of this tragic crisis. We have always told them what we thought was the right way.

Well, that was all so much soap for the peace mob.

The Guardian (moonbat-approved) gives a synopsis of a recent article in Vanity Fair (also moonbat approved reading) wherein the French were ready to forgo all their self-righteous tooting if the United States did NOT seek further authority from the UN. (Please remark the majusculed, italized "NOT". Now go back and re-read Jack's quote above. Uh-huh, yeah, me too.)

At a lunch in the White House on January 13 last year, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, an adviser to the president, Jacques Chirac, and Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador in Washington, put the deal to Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser.

In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution, according to highly placed US sources cited by Vanity Fair.

Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis.

If our choleric franchouilles were outraged by Mr. Bush's straightforward “lying” about the threat posed by Saddam, imagine how much more scandalized by their own government’s genuine duplicity. Lies, lies, lies, blots on the souls of French folk everywhere.

Pave anxiously looks forward to the thread swelling with indignant comments from Frenchies who were played for dopes. Not content to decry Jack’s phony principles at Pave? Drop him a line here. He loves mail.

Sadly, I don't have enough time to write to Jack each time I'm indignated by his statements and his lies...

indignated by his statements and his lies...

Why don't you point out just one lie for us?

Pave is always ready to learn new tricks, in this case, providing generic MoveOn.org-like spammy flame letters that only require the original contribution of your signature. Just cut-and-paste the below and add your name:

Mon Cher Président,

You open your mouth and again you disgrace the sons and daughters of France.

Is there some special mystical connection between your mouth and pronouncements of effusive insincerity?

Did you take note of the recent election results? If France is given the choice of voting for you or a puddle of mayonnaise in 2007, well, the mayonnaise is looking unbeatable. Plus mayonnaise is very tasty in a salad. I can't imagine that you much improve a salad.

Your parochial pomposity, entertaining as it might be in a professional clown, demeans the office you hold, the polity you purport to represent, and the sacred soil and sacred microbes of France herself.

Président Jack, please be alert to the many, many good opportunities your position affords you to shut up.

Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, en nos sentiments dévoués,
[Your name], citoyen de la France/copain de la France [chose one]

There you go, as good as in Jack's bathroom reading bin. Always happy to help get the message out.

DGB

Sorry, I thought you meant Andrew Jack, linked to above. If not, Jack the hack Chirac's lies have been thoroughly enough documented for me.

Speaking of lies, drive-by, I noticed you've been suspiciously absent in the "Reader's submission" thread where Stephane provided you with the TIME link regarding Chirac's statement on WMD. Since you clearly insinuated I was a liar, I'd like to read your retraction.

Thanks for the pointer, I had forgotten where it was.

So, you are not a liar if it clearly states that Chirac claimed that he believed that Saddam had no WMD, your original claim which lead to the deluded charge. If in fact it does show that he said that, I will take it back. Back soon.

Here are my comments from the other thread:

And he [Chirac] was right all along that it was unlikely Saddam possessed WMD

-- Zoomer

I would like to see the quotes where he said that. I don't think they exist.

-- Drive-By

From the story submitted as 'proof' of Zoomer's claim.

President Jacques Chirac laid out his policy with admirable clarity. France, he said, had no difference with the U.S. "over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." The point of distinction was simply that Chirac thought that war — which he believed would outrage Arab and Islamic public opinion and "create a large number of little bin Ladens" — should be a last resort.

-- Time Magazine

So I am sticking to the 'deluded' charge, which referred to your original claim quoted above.

No drive-by, the article quoted Le Ver as saying he did not beleive Iraq had WMD. Unfortunately as Stephane said, you need to suscribe for it. The article as you can see exists (you denied it did and implied I was a liar). Why you continue to deny it is beyond me.

Want to know what is the famous French "cultural exception"?
Maybe it's having Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres as the brand new Minister of Culture just one month after he was convicted and had to pay a fee of €15,000. you can read more about this here: http://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=190898

I still love my country. But I can't understand why they didn't choose someone else.

Damian :

Nice one ! I agree with you. As Madonna said About W. BUSH :"he's not my president.", I want to say the same thing about Jacques Chirac : "he's not mine!".

But France is still my country !

Tough to find a non convicted candidate in France. Just like a broken pad lock the socialist system is set up to cause criminals.
Up for election in a close race? Just open an investigation on your political rival; just make sure the crime he committed is worse then the one your guilty of.

To the least guilty go the spoils. Viva le France!

Sounds a lot like the US, papertiger. What's the difference between a corrupt official and some filthy nouveau-riche pig CEO spending obscene amounts of money he stole from his investors? (and of course gets away with it).

I love it when God-fearing Yanks pontificate.

God bless the USA!

Zoomerx,

You been watching the Democratic Primaries, have you not? Socialism light; American style

What does nouveau-riche mean?

Wow, Zoomerx, you've used "pontificate" in three posts now. Did you just learn the word?

No drive-by, the article quoted Le Ver as saying he did not beleive Iraq had WMD. Unfortunately as Stephane said, you need to suscribe for it.

What was the 'free version' posted for then? 'The Worm' said this amazing thing, that everyone in the world would be most impressed to hear, yet it exists only in one article, that must be paid for with money. Neither he, nor his buddy de Villepin have ever mentioned these magnificently prescient words again, is that what I am to believe? How convenient for you.

Because you remembered the title of an article that neither of us can read? And you think that I am the moron? If he said it, it would be widely quoted.

By the way, you are getting better at this arguing thing, but this last effort is still pretty weak, you were caught out, get over it and move on. Stop making claims you can't back up. The more honest you are, the harder it is to pick apart what you say. Remember that.

I used to suck at this too, making claims that were repeating what my friends said, or that I had read on like-minded web-sites or newspapers. But after getting whacked a few times, I realized that I had better stick with what I knew to be true. Since then I have been having much more fun.

I am sure that France has a defensible point of view, when laid against the real facts, but I have not seen anything like it from your side.

This is what I have distilled the argument down to. Tell me if you agree.

My side:
Terrorism comes from brutal tyrannies in the Middle East that cheapen life across the Arab World. Iraq was one of these regimes, and one of the most Heinous.

There is no proof that Saddam was behind 911, but plenty of incontrovertable proof that he is tied to global terrorism. And he is very likely involved in the '93 attack on the World Trade Center.

Insofar as the war was about oil, it was about taking control of that wealth from a brutal dictator, and bringing it on the open market so that the Iraqi people could get the wealth from it. Few democracies start wars.

Your side:
We can't prove Saddam was behind 911. We are agreed.
The first bombing of the WTC is irrelevant. We are not agreed.
All countries act out of their own selfish interests: We are agreed.
The US acted out of economic interest as much as France did, and the Iraqi people were never part of the bargain. We are not agreed, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Papertiger,

"Nouveau riche" is also used in English. It means people with lots of money and absolutely no taste whatsoever sometimes due to modest beginings. Donald Trump and TV preachers would qualify as some of the worst offenders, as well as hordes of millionaires down the Florida coast. Got the picture?

Andy , don't you pontificate me ;-)

And drive-by, Stephane found the article (I even gave you the correct title yet you still doubting), I could not open it unfortunately. Anyway, I really don't understand why you would question Chirac's quote in which he said he "personally did not think" Iraq had WMD. Did he mean there was absolutely no reason to search them? Absolutely not, in fact, France agreed on that. Is it relevant to the US what Chirac thought at the time? Absolutely not either. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, are you afraid of the truth? If I find the quote, I'll find you and I'll make you eat it personally.

the main difference is The filthy nouveau-riche pig CEOs earned their money while the officials taxed theirs out of the pig CEOs pockets.
stealing by corrupt officials has the added atraction of the possiblity of the actions being declared legal.

Corruption is mainly (in France) officials corrupted by private interests (occasionaly by CEOs) who don't think lobbying is enough to have their interests backed by the politicians.

Stéphane, Goldsoundz,

The object here at Pave is not to win you over to an utterly loathsome opinion of your country, but to spur all to fight the good fight for truth.

Getting at the truth, though, is not as simple as connecting a few dots. You have to fight your way to it. That said, no reason not to flex your forensic muscle, tweak some noses, and have a little fun.

Disavowals notwithstanding, GWB is Madonna's president (lucky her) and Jack is yours (unlucky you). For eight ignominious years Bill Clinton was mine. Trust me, if it were possible to wish away crappy presidents I would share the secret with you. You have to vote the bad out.

BTW, Stéphane, I finally did get around to answering you in the thread here.

DGB

Damian :

Thanks for answering. I don't think that Madonna would agree with you, but it's none of my business, by the way I am unlucky to have Chirac for president. Just not because of the person himself, but because he keeps giving us awful ministers ! Our conservative governement sucks and "it's a shame for all the french"(sort of).

But it's quite okay because the socialist won the election (éléctions régionales) and are going to create a counter power !

Stéphane

Drive-by, Zoomerx,

If what is in contention between you two is whether prior to the liberation of Iraq, did Jack personally think Saddam possessed WMD, well, let's put this tired dog down.

Here is Dr. David Kay before the Senate Armed Services Committee where he contests Jack's earlier disavowal ("I have no evidence that these weapons exist in Iraq.") claiming there are "other quotes from the French and Chirac." [Senator Levin jumps in, "Where Chirac says they do have weapons."] "Yes."

Here is a corroborating quote from the Economist:

In short, the case for believing that Iraq had clung in defiance of the Security Council to its proscribed weapons was overwhelming. Even France's Jacques Chirac, who opposed the war, referred a month before it to Iraq's "probable" possession of them.

[Emphasis added.]

Larry Elder fleshes out the quote referred to above:

French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed."

Of course, it is easy to see why you would both hold completely opposite claims about Jack's state of dubiety. Jack maintained an ongoing obliquitous tension between "maybe yes" and "maybe no". Here he is a few months before the liberation of Iraq giving a tortured "maybe yes":

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Here is the Guardian (moonbat approved), February 4, 2004, also giving the disputed Time quote:

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with US views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the US; Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February: "There is a problem - the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." No one doubted that Iraq had WMD.

[Emphasis added.]

Ok, so how about somebody commenting on the Vanity Fair article mentioned in the post. Why haven't the Frenchies flocked to this thread to post their bitter indignation at Jack & crew? Very disappointing. Very disappointing.

DGB

If I find the quote, I'll find you and I'll make you eat it personally.

Even DGB can't prove a negative. I do think he came pretty close here though. So, if you do find the quote before D-Day anniversery, I will print it out and eat it. Otherwise, you will wave the tri-color and American flag together as you watch George Bush visit the beach at Normandy.

Drive-by,

Negatives can be proven. Let's start in Saddam's hidey-hole. Jack asserts there are no WMD in Saddam's hidey-hole. Well, a thorough search of every square inch of hidey-hole shows Jack to be right. But the proof of this particularized assertion cannot then be generalized to the whole of Iraq. To assert the same for the whole of Iraq requires an equally thorough but vastly more complicated search, e.g., the search must preclude WMD being shuffled from unsearched areas to searched areas.

What I've attempted here is simply to let the available facts speak to the assertion that Jack doubted Saddam possessed WMD.

It seems obvious that Jack thought that there were WMD in Iraq right up to the commencement of hostilities. All the above quotes attest to this.

Unless Zoomerx can produce some unequivocal turnabout utterance by Jack after the February Time article but before May 1, 2k4, the end of hostilities (the very next day, Mr. Bush's critics began demanding WMD be discovered -- immediately), then I'd say your point is made.

DGB

I wanted to add, "given the scope of the problem and the resources likely available to him." Nevertheless, the remote possibility exists that he is right, and my bet stands.

Umm sorry folks, if this is a bit of subject, but I wish to know the opinion of the Frogs about the EU/Philip Morris deal.

To paraphrase, since 2000 the EU has been battling Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and Japan Tobacco in court. The EU alleging that these companies ship excess volumes of cigarettes to low-tax countries (does anybody know which countries these are?) knowing that these cigs will be smuggled into high tax countries (France?) thus avoiding the high taxes on cigarettes. Since the counties that brought the suit are Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Luxembourg I will assume that they are the “high” tax countries.

So, Philip Morris pays 1 billion USD over next 12 years because EU says that the countries are being cheated out of $230 million USD a year.

OK, last month EU imposed fines of $600 million against Microsoft (I know, Steph, you think this is OK) and now this. Please, frogs, your opinions please.

I think that we have humiliated them. They are so much smarter than us, yet we just don't see it. I resolve to be nicer in the future and accept as true at least one in four tenants of European agitprop they spout.

not a good day in Irak .....

Thank you to our Canadian friend for his heartfelt sympathy at this difficult time.

andy:
you want our opinions as frogs on the EU competition policy? or on the fact that it applicates also on non-european firms in Europe?

For the Adam's delectation

You will especially enjoy photo number 3.

that's one difference between us and americans (usa) we don't always use sarcasm. If i want to use sarcasm i would have said this instead: Wow! the liberator have been receive well today!...
the day you'll accept the fact that no nation have the monopoly of good or evil, you'll understand many things.

and one more thing, it's crystal clear that every american on this board is a republican, do you really like your president? do you really think he's competent? and if you have a choice who would you pick instead. Don't answer me with insult, i'm not insulting you, either you're idea or the republican party.

ADAM

You know, I didn't take your comment as snarkie in the slightest. In fact quite the opposite.
I think you might have wanted to discuss recent events in Iraq, but you show sensitivity to the subject. For that Drive-By says thank you. It's not sarcasm, I too appreciate your soft petal approach.

I didn't vote for President Bush. I was a registered Democrat up until our recall election in California. Due to a snafu while moving, my polling place lost track of my party affiliation. So I was thinking "I don't agree with government deciding every facet of my life, why am I still a Dem?" The Democrat running for Governor had kept his affiliation with a Mexican separatist group called Mecha. Mecha wants to return California to Mexico. This is just a snip of how crazy the Democrats have become in our State.
I was going to vote for Arnold anyhow, so I took the opportunity to switch. Im a Republican now. First one in my family as far as I know.

I didn't vote for Bush but I will next election.

Adam,
I think Bush is unfairly and inaccurately maligned by the Left. They just can't make up their mind if he is as dumb as a rock or if he is an evil genius. Just think about it for a moment. If George W. Bush were as stupid as most Europeans like to pretend he is, how could he have attained The Presidency? You do not get there by being stupid, even if you disagree with his politics. That attitude has gotten him far and I sometimes think he intentionally does things to foster that impression so his opponents will "miss-underestimate" him.
I do agree that he is a lousy public speaker and I believe that is the source of that observation.

What do I think of Bush as a President?
In many ways his policies are not that different from Bill Clinton's on many issues with the exception how he deals with terrorism. The big difference that most foreigners notice is that Bush is more likely to tell you the truth and not what you want to hear. Kyoto was dead under Clinton and was unanimously defeated by the US Senate before Bush was elected. It never would have gone anywhere. Bush just told the world the truth about it instead of Bill Clinton telling you what you wanted to hear.

Personally, I think Bush is too soft and cares too much about what Europeans or other countries think about us. I would rather have Don Rumsfeld as President, but now he is too old. My next choice would be Condoleeza Rice.

Rummy-Rice, now there would be a ticket. And Adam, my first response was genuine, although I doubted then that your concern was genuine. My second post was serious too. We have seen heavy casualties, we believe that Iraq under Saddam was part of the terrorist problem, whether specifically implicated in 911 or not. I can argue it with you if you care to, no insults.

I think you will notice that I am rarely the first one to whip out the insulting language.

We could also discuss the WMD issue, if you wanted to, rationally.

But since you asked, I have asked several times for the Eurocentric posters here to prove that Bush is a moron, or that he is incompetent.

The kind of answers that I get are "He killed Kyoto". Which every American who understands anything about our constitution knows he did not do. It is hard to take the arguments seriously after that. If you have a specific case, a particular action, that Bush took that you consider stupid, And the reasons you consider it stupid, I will be happy to discuss them.

We all know you hate him. Tell me something new, tell me a specific reason why, beyond the fact that he is from Texas. I cant argue with xenophobia.

One thing, remember that us Republicans are pretty good with Google, so be sure to keep your assertions factual and supportable. This will keep the debate on a higher, more friendly level.

I say this in all seriousness, I would really like to debate the merits of Bush as a president meaningfully with someone who hates him. It is just that everybody who hates him, seems blinded by their hate.

Actually, one of the things I love the most about him is that Europeans hate him so much. I would not choose anyone else as president, and I will vote for him again. Unless somehow you actually convince me that you are right about him.

as for Kyoto, my opinion on this is clear, the first party( gop or dem) that would sign this will loss all support of energy company. In opposition to Canada hydroenergy, yours is limited. So ecolo-friendly energy for your country is as for limited. So everybody know that kyoto would be very hard on your economy. Personnaly, i think we have no choice to change our ways cause we're going to face in 50-100 years the biggest crisis we ever face. The crisis already started.

as for Bush, yes i don't like him, but for reasons. i don't like when he always put the word god in his speech ( madman too i'm sick of it). He uses a control lexical field, that show how much his idea are not from him. Even if he has a degree in administration, or in history(sic)he doesn't administrate anything. As for being president, i don't think being intelligent is a perequisit for presidency( not only in the usa, but for every country) but i can say that he his very charismatic and that's a good asset.
To show that my judgement is not biase, i can say that Rumsfeld, Rice or Wolfowitz are very intelligent people. Even if i don't like there ideas. I always like a real leader example: De Gaulle, Clémenceau, churchill, Eisenhower, thatcher. Don't think by now that i like these people, as you can see they come from different horizons. For me Bush is a puppet( no offense) i don't like either Chirac, Sharon or Arafat (for other reasons somehow)It's not a question of telling the truth or not, they try to show you a way of thinking, they impose you a logic that people follow. When people enter in this kind of logic they are easy to control. By that, i don't talk only about the us, but every system.

as for terrorist threat, i'm not surprise that republicans seem the most competent in this domain. They use visible ways to deal with that( afgh.., Irak and home security), but ( brute ) force will never be a way of soluting this ongoing conflict. temporary yes, but in the long way no. To long term conflict( very very long term)we must have long term solution. And i don't think your country would have the power to support another Irak($$$) it cost a lot and it's tough on moral. Nobody can. Multilateralism(UN) as much as you (perhaps) hate it, is the only solution(with serious reforms i admit)

Even me i would have vote for Arnold! lol and how good he is, since he's in power?

And i would like to have your opinion on Ann Coulter. I check her website, at the beginning i laugh (http://www.anncoulter.org/images.html), but i stop when i saw it was serious.

In opposition to Canada hydroenergy, yours is limited.

Our options are limited because the Democrat party has taken the opposition to nuclear power as one of their religious tenets. If one really believes that human caused global warming will be such a large crisis, why not drop opposition to nuclear power? France does a good job with it. They don't do it because their opposition has little to do with rational thought.

And my last word on the subject. Kerry is the only one of the two who actually had any say on Kyoto, and he voted against it. I know it is more fun to blame oppostion to Kyoto on the Energy companies, because they are identified with the Republicans, but the auto unions, a Demcocrat constituancy, adamantly oppose it. American and Canadian auto workers build LARGE cars, If Kyoto were passed, we would have to drive cars that the Japanese, Koreans, and Europeans build better. Costing many Democrat jobs.

...they impose you a logic that people follow.

This is the real issue, not that Bush is stupid, he's not, but that he can use US power to reject and overturn the 'logic of inevitability' that many leaders try to impose. It is as if they think that are playing chess on a static board, but there is one player who can play with new rules and gets new pieces all of the time.

We can talk about long term solutions to the terrorist threats. I think you are wrong on this one, but I am out of time.

BTW: I like Ann Coulter. She said a couple of intemperate things after 9-11, but remember that her very good friend Barbera Olsen was killed in the crash into the Pentagon. I have a personal rule about judging the actions of the grieving, which is "don't do it".

I think that it is very difficult for non-Americans to get the humor of Ann's point of view. And Americans too, if they don't want to get it. I read her book "Slander", which I quite liked. I relate to her a lot. If you read the book with an open mind, this is the message that you would get, in my opinion.

"The left will not discuss issues and facts with us, instead they hurl insults, make fun of our appearences, and repeat easily disprovable facts, as if that constituted constructive argument."

Does any of this sound like a particulary sarcastic subjectivist that you know?

Read this column with the above statement in mind and see if you understand it better. You don't have to agree with it, just understand it better. Top Ten Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her, errr, Appearance

It makes us right-wingers laugh because we know just what she is talking about.

After listening to Air America for a week, I now know what liberal radio is. It is Janeane Garofalo bantering with her co-host about swallowing her own saliva, and then dismissing the American victims of the Fallujah lynch mob as a pack of mercenaries. It is a woman named Randi Rhodes talking dirty and cracking on Condoleezza Rice's "plastic hair."

This from a liberal paper The New York Post's review of the new left wing talk network recently launched in the US. If you read the article, you can see that the author is very sympathetic to the left.

I could find lots more examples of left-wing anti-Rice agitprop, what else can you call it? But why? It does not advance the debate.

By the way. Clarke decided that Rice had never heard of Al Quaeda based on her facial appearence, her expression. Never mind that during the election campaign, in 2000, Rice outlined broadly the current administrations anti-terror strategy and mentioned Al Quaeda specifically. >a href="http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/011436.html">Another easily disprovable fact repeated nevertheless by the left.

Another easily disprovable fact repeated nevertheless by the left.

Oops

I remember the first time I heard Ann Coulter speak. She was on a talk show berating Katy Couric for her politics.
I was thinking, why would she attack Couric? Katy Couric is that giggling little thing the Network puts on the podium for the Macy's parade. What does she even say that is political?

I didn't think much more about it, but I remembered Ann Coulter. I saw her on a few more shows. Then I read a few of her articles. She grows on you. Common sense usually does. She decribed how Democrats gerry mander and manipulate elections to get incompetents into office. Being from California, I immidiately could relate.

Then a year after the 911 attacks, the networks played their morning show news coverage from 911 back again in its entirety. Katy Couric, that sweet lovable little bubble headed morning urchin. She had just witnessed the second plane hit, and she never once says the word terrorism. It is like their is a disconnect between her brain and reality. I thought back to what Ann Coulter said about her.

Watch out for Ann Coulter. She will seduce you back from the Idiotarian side of the aisle.

Ann Coulter is a racist xenophobic provocateur par exellence . She's the female equivalent of Jean-Marie Le Pen if not worse. She made fun of a paraplegic US senator who served in Vietnam as well as other odious things about Democrats, minorities, muslims and France, of course. She's not funny, just cruel. Why you would like her is beyond me.

Zoomer

You would have to read her stuff. She isn't xenophobic. Her main complaint against the Democrats is that they don't like America. Her second complaint against Democrats is that they call people names, instead of addressing issues.

Much like you just did to her.

As far as Max Cleland goes, she said,
"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."

Further critisim of Max Cleland had to do with his accusing the President of not fulfilling his military service. The AWOL charge has been disproved more times then the second gunman theory of the real JFK's assasination.

It is another peculiarity of Democrats, that they argue by lying over and over again. No matter how much proof is presented, when it is time to discuss an issue such as homeland security funding, the lie will be reasserted to avoid talking about more important things, like removing labor union perks that threaten national security. Max Cleland was the perfect water carrier to regurgitate the President Bush was AWOL lie once again, because he had been injured while in Vietnam. See how clever the Dems are?
They know that the lie will be beaten back with facts yet again, but that by the time it is, Vietnam will be the stink in the media's nose.
Followed closely by the quagmire meme. And no one will remember why the airport security guards were on their union mandated coffee break, while a terrorist bomber entered the country.

The only accurate use of Quagmire in this instance, is if you use the word as a discription of the Democrats tactics.

Here is more Ann Coulter on Max Cleland,
And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity – including in the National Guard.

Telling the truth about a man isn't the same as making fun of him. Rather it is the Democrats trying to create a war hero out of an accident victim, that is insulting to Senator Cleland's honor.

You should read some of Ann Coulter before dissing her.

Zoomer,
Did you read my posts and links? I thought I explained pretty well why I liked her. I will not challange you on your statements, because I think paper tiger did a pretty good job on the EASILY DISPROVABLE Max Cleland charge. sensing a pattern here? In any case, odious means different things to different people. Another technique that leftists use in their argument of sloppy language.

Andy,

I don't see what bothers you with the EU fining Philip Morris for smuggling. Concerning Microsoft, the more I think about it, the more I believe AT&T and Standard Oil went down for much less. I'd be curious to hear one justification for not breaking up this company into competing entities. Or what disadvantages this would bring.
If you find it unbearable that US companies have their behaviour in Europe dictated by the European Commission, I'd like then your enlightened opinion about the Helms-Burton sanctions that more or less punish foreign companies for doing business with Cuba.

Damian,

For eight ignominious years Bill Clinton was mine. Trust me, if it were possible to wish away crappy presidents I would share the secret with you

The largest growth in the US for a long time, record-low unemployement rate, a balanced budget, unrivalled power in the world. What's wrong with that? That he could have picked up a better-looking intern?

Do you really feel better off now than four years ago?

Dr Evil Steph,

A. There was no balanced budget or prospect thereof until the Democrats lost control of Congress. A happy event that I partly attribute to Clinton overreach. So I have to give you that one.

From the US Constitution: : The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts ... To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Of course this doesn't fit with your agitprop, so whatever source it is that provides you with your thoughts ignores it.

As for record growth, did you ever hear of the internet bubble? And the party was over even before Clinton left. The economic downturn that the US faced over the past couple of years started during the Clinton administration. I am trying to be less long-winded, but I can prove it to you if you doubt it.

As for "better looking interns", see the posts re Ann Coulter above, it is not our side that is obsessed with looks.

And yes, I do feel better off, with a growing economy, rather that one that was beginning to contract, with a dropping unemployment rate, rather than the climbing one we had four years ago, and a stock market that is on the way up, rather than down.

The usual terms and conditions apply to the above paragraph, you are free to challenge any assertion, I will be happy to prove them using news stories of the time (not opinion peices), where do get your agitprop? yada yada yada.

I am changing my handle from 'Drive-By' to de-programmer, it just seems more appropriate.

OK Dr Evil, I’ve finally gotten around to responding to your post. Hope you had a wonderful Easter/Passover or whatever it is you celebrate.

I don’t see what bother you with the EU finding Philip Morris for smuggling. Well, first of all, it was never proven that Philip Morris was involved in the smuggling. All they did was to ship cigarettes to “lower” tax countries. Customers in these countries then did the smuggling. It appears that the countries themselves were unable to stop the smuggling by Philip Morris’s customers. Also, Philip Morris was being hurt by the counterfeiting of cigarettes. The estimate is of about $100 million a year. So, the European countries are unable to stop the smuggling of products, and to stop the counterfeiting of a product. Who is to blame? Well, according to the EU, the US producer of course.

Instead of going after the smugglers, the EU/countries went after the “lawful” sellers of the product. That is what bothers me. And it should bother you, as well. Of course, if the European governments did not rely so much on cigarette taxes for revenue, it is doubtful if this case would have ever gone anywhere. Money talks.

I'd be curious to hear one justification for not breaking up this company into competing entities. Or what disadvantages this would bring.

Microsoft will not be broken up; Europe has the power to fine Microsoft, but not to break it up. As far as disadvantages, well, you Europeans will soon find this out. You will get a substandard version of windows WITHOUT the Microsoft media player, WITHOUT software for viewing video, and WITHOUT software for listening to music. I don’t think that is something you are all going to jump for joy about, no matter how much money the EU was able to squeeze out of Microsoft.

I am not a big proponent of Microsoft, but I feel they had the best solution of adding the other manufacturer’s players and then you could have picked the one you wanted. But, I guess the EU knows more about technology and innovation than some US company, eh?

If you find it unbearable that US companies have their behavior in Europe dictated by the European Commission

Well, no, I don't. I would mention however that the complaining companies that actually brought the suit to the European Commission are from the US, Microsoft is a US company, and only 30% of Microsoft product is sold in Europe. So it does make the EC’s decision to disregard the action taken by the US government somewhat unfortunate. What I am concerned about here is the fact that if a US Company does not like the outcome of their case in the US, they then will go after them in Europe.

There is here, of course, talk that the case was dictated by anti-American sentiments caused by the Iraq war. I do not think this is the case. After all, Monti was the one who three years ago blocked the General Electric takeover of Honeywell AFTER it had been approved in US. Secondly, Europe is quite involved in promoting “open-source” code with all software vendors, not just Microsoft.

, I'd like then your enlightened opinion about the Helms-Burton sanctions that more

Dr. Evil, I’m flattered you feel my opinion is “enlightened”. I’ll make you a deal: You defend the International Court of Justice…..and then I’ll defend Helms-Burton…….

Alas, the other missing ingredient for liberal media is intellectual firepower. On this, the left has actually gone soft. In academia, left-liberalism is so entrenched its advocates' debating skills have gone rusty. When you've been talking to yourself for decades and imposing speech codes on everyone else, your ability to argue coherently - let alone entertainingly - inevitably wanes.

--Andrew Sullivan

Ain't it the truth.

I read from others that Linux is a better OS then Windows. I never have used it so I have no frame of reference. But on the outside looking at the discription of Linux, it is an open source code. Meaning anybody can write embedded code to suit their own interest. All of it being free per the socialist philosophy that created it.

What about security? For example, instead of the Windows Media Player, I recently installed a Real Media Player, from the BBC website. Immediately their were sound issues, (I call not having any sound an issue). System files were overwritten without warning (you know those ones your not supposed to ever mess with in order for your system to operate correctly). And suddenly now my computer logs on to the internet without warning or bidding to do God knows what, then logs itself off again, without my participation.
Removing Real Player seems impossible. I have done it three times now, only to have it reappear on the next boot.

Now imagine an Op system where every program is a third party code written by a pimply faced geek living in his mother's basement. Would the Computer not take over? Wouldn't it become an instrument at the world's whim, instead of my whim? This is the problem with breaking up the Windows monopoly, at least to me. I would rather deal with one companies product and its well documented idosyncracies, then with hundereds of other people codes from all corners of the globe.

Linux is the electronic tower of Babel. It should be made to compete with a non hobbled Windows.

and one more thing, it's crystal clear that every american on this board is a republican, do you really like your president? do you really think he's competent? and if you have a choice who would you pick instead.

Pick up some Windex, I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Gore. In retrospect, I'm also thankful he did not win.

Yes, I more or less do like him. The one thing that grew on me throughout this term was that he was not a poll-chasing politico, and he applied principle and acted rather than putting a finger in the wind and stalling till he knew which way it was blowing. He actually seemed to have integrity, and would do politically risky things if he thought it was the right thing to do (though I didn't always agree that it was right). I don't want to vote for a party platform, or for an ideology - I want to vote for a leader, although I didn't figure that out until somewhere near 9-11.

Of course, as we get closer to the election, he starts looking more like a poll-chasing politico. I have to admit it's disappointing to see that perceived integrity start to melt away. There have been plenty of things I didn't like about his administration, but as I said I didn't vote for him. This time around I'll make up for that by doing my part to keep Kerry in Massachusetts.