The Emperor HAS Clothes
Topic: Satire
You may remember Milli Vanilli as the group who made everyone believe that they actually sang the songs that were on their albums. Most people who had a clue back then, we'll call them the slarebil group, knew the truth about Milli Vanilli. The other group that knew the truth, we'll call them the snocoen group, were the one's that produced this entire facade for profit.

You see the snocoen group was really sly and diabolical. They knew that if they put a pretty face on an ugly bunch of talented singers the public would eat it up. It was kind of like a twisted version of the story "The Emperor Has No Clothes" except this time the emperor did have clothes on, and in fact was wearing a Gucci suit.
Although in this version of the story the townspeople yelled "shutup kid your supposed to be screaming that the emperor has no clothes, so get with program".

The slarebil group on the other hand couldn't understand all the hubbub. "So what", they said, "you should buy Milli Vanilli albums because you like their music, not because you like their looks".

What the slarebil group failed to realize was not a single person who purchased a Milli Vanilli album (and there were many) were concerned with the actual music that they were listening too. They wanted their money back because all they cared about was the image that Milli Vanilli projected, and more importantly what people would think of them, the purchaser of the Milli Vanilli album.

That's the issue today. People don't want to hear the kid yelling the "emperor has clothes" because they've read the story and they know he should be yelling "The Emperor Has NO Clothes". That kid's being honest again and they don't want to hear it. Their only interested in the side that they believe creates the best image for them, and they don't care about the facts. It's not a distraction, it's a delusion.

It's just like Milli Vanilli, and this time people don't care.

Bunch Of Sensitive Guys
Topic: Satire
In response to John Kerry's girlie like statement about being sensitive, no wait, I should post the entire quote so we can see how much of a pansy he really is:

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Pussy!

Now lets hear from those tough guys in the Bush administration:

Donald Rumsfeld said:

"we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it's conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that's an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided."

"sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And [they] are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives."

General Richard Myers said:

"We are, I think, very culturally sensitive."

"We can ask of our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation, all at the same time."

General Tommy Franks said:

"Everyone from the president to Secretary Rumsfeld right through me were very sensitive, to be sure, that our operations moved ahead in Afghanistan in parallel with what we were doing in Iraq."

Attorney General John Ashcroft said:

"The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries."

"The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed."

Vice President Dick Cheney said:

"We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."

"was very concerned about...the clash of cultures"

U.S. must "try to be sensitive."

Sen. Trent Lott agreed saying:

"I think we've made it clear we're going to be sensitive to the fact that Ramadan is the holiest month on the Muslim calendar and we will have that in mind."

President George W. Bush said:

"because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence."

"Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that."

Giving Your First Born
Topic: Personal
The next time you consider the necissity of this war, ask yourself would you give your first born son's life for Najaf?

Man Torches Himself

The repurcussions of war not only affect people abroad they also affect people at home.

It starting to look way too familiar...

Let's hope and pray it ends soon.

Calm
Topic: Personal
"You've been hoodwinked. You've been had. You've been took. You've been led astray, run amok. You've been bamboozled." Malcolm X

I'm mad. No, I'm angry, pissed off, and enraged.

Every time that I drive around in my not so sleepy town of Wake Forest, North Carolina, and I see the Bush/Cheney signs or bumper stickers I get mad.

I don't want to harm anyone but I want to shake them. I want to figuratively slap them. I want to tell them to snap out of it.

I want to make the common man (or woman) who has that bumper sticker on the back of that beat up Ford Escort realize why they have that bumper sticker on the back of that beat up Ford Escort. I want to make them realize that the decisions that they make affect not only their lives but the lives of others. I want to make them realize that their choices are hurting people, especially themselves.

I want them to understand that there are men who will do things against their own self-interest for the greater good. That there are people who will say important things, things that they don't want to hear, things that they need to hear. There are men who will unite us not divide us.

I want to make people realize that in order to protect their religion it absolutely needs to stay out of their government. I want people to believe the words of their prophets and their God when they were told that violence isn't the way. I want them to understand that simple men have solved world problems like slavery, fascism, nazism and communism, through the power of their peaceful ideas. I want to make them think for themselves so that they can come up with their own ideas.

I want to make them realize that they must stop trying to tell other people how to live their lives.

It is usually at this point in my thinking when a calm comes over me and I realize that I need to start doing the same. This is when I realize that people are not going to change overnight. I need to have patience. I need to realize that I can't do it for them. I can't tell them what to do.

What makes me grow calm is that I become aware that I need to allow people to learn on their own. I can inspire them and educate them but until they realize these things for themselves nothing is going to change.

I wish I could make the President and his followers understand this so that they could take responsibility for their greed, division, lack of patience and support of violence. I wish I could make them understand that the preservation of the union for a little perceived security isn't worth destroying the fundamental principles that it was built upon.

I wish I could make them understand that they can't force people to do what they want them to do.

... ah, the calm.

You're Going Down...
Topic: Satire
I just gotta say that when...

=

...and you have a bunch of knitters pissed off at you, you know that you're doing something wrong.

Check this out, I'm nicknaming them the "militant knitters" (there not really militant but there strong nonetheless): Knitters Against Bush

Their website has a link to this great News And Observer (our hometown) newspaper article: Ten Threats To The Republic

January 26, 1998 PNAC Letter

Topic: Iraq
This is a letter from the "The Project for the New American Century":

"January 26, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams (National Security Council, Elliot Abrams)

Richard L. Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage)

William J. Bennett (speechwriter for George W. Bush, William J. Bennett)

Jeffrey Bergner (His lobbying firm, Bergner, Bockorny, Castagnetti, Hawkins & Brain, represents a number of high profile firms, including Bristol-Myers Squib, Boeing, Hewlett-Packard, Phillip Morris, Monsanto, Lucent, and Dell, Jeffrey Bergner)

John Bolton (Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton)

Paula Dobriansky (Under Secretary, Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky)

Francis Fukuyama (professor of political economy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Francis Fukuyama)

Robert Kagan (co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, Robert Kagan)

Zalmay Khalilzad (special envoy to Afghanistan, advisor for the Unocal Corporation, counsellor to United States Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, senior United States State Department official advising on the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war, and from 1991 to 1992, he was a senior Defense Department official for policy planning, Zalmay Khalilzad)

William Kristol (advocate for Israel, political contributor to the Fox News Channel, William Kristol)

Richard Perle (Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle)

Peter W. Rodman (Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense, Peter W. Rodman)

Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld)

William Schneider, Jr. (Chairman of the Defense Science Board, William Scheider Jr.)

Vin Weber (former U.S. Representative from Minnesota, Vin Weber)

Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz)

R. James Woolsey (former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey)

Robert B. Zoellick (member of President George Walker Bush's Cabinet, Robert B. Zoellick)

File This Under Personal
Topic: Personal Attack
You sensitive conservative types may not want to view this. It contains some images of a personally attacking nature against some of your Gods. We all know how you neo-cons loathe personal attacks.

I wouldn't want to cause anybody to cry.

Please Don't Cry

Douche Bag Of Liberty
Topic: Personal Attack
One of the only sources for non-partisan truth: Novak Is A Traitor

Research Kerry
Topic: Retort

If your doing research on John Kerry and are wondering whether or not the Swift Boat Veterans are telling the truth check out what journalist William Rood, from the Chicago Tribune, has to say:
Journalist Comes Clean

Not The First Time...
Topic: Retort
This is not the first time George W. Bush has unleashed his attack dogs on someone who didn't deserve it.

Remember:

"...you should be ashamed."

America Can Do Better