Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

W cannot be more stupid or more clueless than the people who vote for him.

If we had a robust, free press I don't see how his approval or support ratings would be even 10%. Forget about the 30%-40% he now enjoys.

That demographic would include the brainwashed, the mentally ill, the deluded, the completely fooled, and the 0.1% of the population that actually benefits from his policies. He can't even keep the Reagan family on board (if they ever were).

Brad....Have you not watched Alan Murray shill for Bush and the Repubs. on MSNBC for years. Itis so blatant and nauseating Iwould not engage your "beautiful mind" to rebut him. It's like calling Limbaugh a liar; it's old news.

Brad....Have you not watched Alan Murray shill for Bush and the Repubs. on MSNBC for years. Itis so blatant and nauseating Iwould not engage your "beautiful mind" to rebut him. It's like calling Limbaugh a liar; it's old news.

It's the aphasia defence: one can't be lying, if one lacks basic linguistic competence. Clinton's problem was just the opposite, therefore he lacked an "affirmative" defence.

For some reason I cannot understand, Bush isn't willing to cut loose the people he must cut loose, if he's not to look even guiltier than he already does. He's clinging to the anchor as the ship goes down.

I heard somewhere that Reagan apparently actually believed he was a submarine commander in WWII (or some such thing) too.

Which brings me to something I just read right here:

"...[Saddam and] Our Friends the Saudis who attack Israel (with whom Saddam Hussein was allied before 911)..."

Is THAT "the truth", Brad?

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and those zillions of US troops and planes in Saudi Arabia (employed in the on-going effort contain Iraq AND patrol Iraqi "no fly zones" after GW1) didn't strain the [alleged] "alliance" between Iraq and Saudi Arabia?

If that's "the truth", all I can say is:

Golly! It's a pity ALL the nations on the planet aren't blessed with neighbors (and "allies") as "grown-up" as that...

What grown-up Republicans are you thinking of? I think whoever they may be has been co-opted by the dream of owning all three branches of government for the next 50 years or so, and thus has been so corrupted that their own credibility within the party may be gone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
That's the link to the March 2 MSNBC story about the three times our military was ready to take out al-Zarqawi in the year before we invaded Iraq, only to be vetoed by the White House.

Even Incurious George can't possibly be *that* dumb. Gotta go with 'liar'.

I would feel better to believe he is lying and playing politics that to believe that he truly cannot distinguish between al Qaeda threats and Iraq.

Than again, didn't some people believe that Vietnam war was a war of communism against democracy? In Fog of War, McNamara lets us know that he could see past the domino theory, but don't some old timers still believe it?

I think we need a better press corp that will get a foreigner's POV and put it in the he said she said line. That way the politicians will have a more difficult time getting the public to accept their flawed ideology.

This is a fine example of why the Republicans go with obvious imbeciles. The cliche is not to attribute to malice what could possibly be explained by incompetence, and with Bush any malice can be so explained. Hence, he is not lying, he just doesn't see the truth so good. This approach is a sharp reading of the prevailing prejudices actually.

I think of I've posted several times this year that just when you think this administration could be any more galling, dishonest if not out and out dumb, they top themselves a day later.

Well, this is another one of those posts. We're it not so harmful to everyone who lives in this country, it would be entertaining game: what will these guys think up next?

Er, "Were" it not so harmful. Seriously, I'm graduating this Sunday. The grammar should get better by then.

Now that I've thought about it, I can think of one more thing I COULD say:

Get this "message" to Ariel Sharon and his "allies" WHERE EVER they might be. Get it right. Get it soon. Get it good. And get it LOUD and CLEAR...

------------------------

...The second [of "TEN"] mistakes I think history will record is that the strategy was flawed. I couldn't believe what I was hearing about the benefits of this strategic move. That the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true, the road to Baghdad led through Jerusalem. You solve the Middle East peace process, you'd be surprised what kinds of others things will work out..."

Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm

It's interesting, because Murray just had Al Franken on CNBC's "Capital Report"-- see the replays, if possible. Murray asks questions directly related to recent columns, including this one. Franken deftly handles it, turns it around and basically gets Murray to admit Bush lied when he said the majority of his tax relief went to the middle and lower class. They also got into it about Moore's treatment of the Bin Laden family's travels post 9/11, the subject of a recent column as well.

What is wrong with Murray's statement is this: Bush can be sincere, but wrong, and do just as much harm to the United States as if he were a mean-spirited liar. What he can't do is get re-elected, since his core supporters underwrite his "decisive" leadership and "character" and "vision." Not admitting he was wrong is an electoral strategy, a cold-blooded one. Nothing more.

But, back to Murray. As I noted, what makes a sincerely-held gross misinterpretation of reality a pleasing quality in a leader? I'm quite sure that Chareles Manson was solidly faithful regarding his committment to sparking a race war through serial mass murders. A new biography of Stalin suggests he really believed Lysenko, and genuinely figured the purges of the 1930s were grounded in the guilt of the accused. Bush is not so murderous, surely, but is a similar divorce from common views of the real less disturbing than grasping the real, and then lying about it? Redefining what is real in a self-serving fashion (which, by the way, Mr. Murray has no reason to assume Bill Clinton was not doing) isn't a plus for a president; it just let's us share his dementia. However, Bush's redefinition has consumed us all. Clinton's just embarrassed us.

In the current Atlantic, James Fallows argues that Bush showed remarkable linguistic competence in the only debate with Ann Richards. He was able to focus the questions to the message he wanted to deliver, he nailed grammar issues, and spoke without hesitation. That does not seem to be the current situation. Fallows says that his goal is to project an image of himself as friendly and charming, and that this is a reasonable strategy, which we can expect to see when he debates Kerry. Fallows says he should be regarded as a formidable opponent in debates, and that he is undefeated at this art form.

I wonder what changed to make him so unable to use the English language?

In defense of Murray the indefensible, I think it is quite plausible that Bush believes what he says about Iraq, and probably most of the other nonsense he spouts. The record seems now to be unimpeachable. He does not have the capacity to hold ideas in his mind long enough to test them against fact and alternative ideas. In short, the man can't think. It doesn't matter to him that the facts don't fit the theory, or that the theory is logically inconsistent. It's a pretty lame defense for a chief executive, but there seem to be a lot of CEO's who've made a lot of money ruining their companies, so the skill can't be all that rare.

As to Murray, I always saw him as an earnest hardworking mediocre journalist. We have a lot of students like that. It could be worse.

*...I wonder what changed to make him so unable to use the English language?*

-----------------

Who knows what's in those "pretzels" they say he likes?

Who knows what's in the air up there?

Who knows what's up anywhere anymore?

Who?

-----------------

White House Faces Disclosure Suit: Group Says Government Had Braced for Anthrax Attacks

Associated Press
Saturday, June 8, 2002; [Washington Post] Page A11

A conservative group is suing the Bush administration for access to documents about last fall's anthrax attacks, asserting that top officials might have known the bioterrorist attack was coming.

Judicial Watch said yesterday it has yet to receive documents from several agencies after filing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The group says the documents will show who knew what, and when.

Judicial Watch, which also has sued for documents about Vice President Cheney's energy task force, represents U.S. postal workers at the Brentwood post office in the District. Two workers from Brentwood died of inhalation anthrax before officials closed the site, which had handled anthrax-laden letters headed to Capitol Hill.

Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, said administration officials said last fall that some White House staff members had begun taking the antibiotic Cipro on Sept. 11, weeks before the anthrax attacks were made public....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15269-2002Jun7?language=printer

-------------------

New York

September 18, 2001

A letter containing anthrax is postmarked from Trenton, New Jersey to Tom Brokaw...

"Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks in New York"

http://www.fact-index.com/t/ti/timeline_of_the_2001_anthrax_attacks_in_new_york.html

-------------------

Boca Raton, Florida

September 19, 2001

A letter addressed to Jennifer Lopez containing a Star of David and a bluish powder arrived in the Sun's mailroom....

"Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks in Florida"

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/t/ti/timeline_of_the_2001_anthrax_attacks_in_florida.html

-------------------

October 15, 2001

President Bush announces a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had anthrax in it.

"2001 anthrax attacks"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attack

Never mind whether he's lying, of course he is...

He's neither clueless, nor is there anything he does not understand in intelligence reports.

Particularly here, he understands, from Reagan's example, that some people will forgive a chucklehead. "If only he received the correct information, he'd be a good leader, goldurnit!" He's using the Reagan defense.

The campaign issue should be: given the President's OWN official version of events, do you TRUST him to act with foresight, judgment, and competence in the NEXT foreign policy crisis, whatever that will be? Think: Richard Clarke's revelations, the $43 million sent to the Taliban (whom he surely knew were in league with Al Qaeda) three months before 9/11, the Afganistan implosion, the Iraqi debacle, the fiscal outlook, the military exhaustion, the diminution of America's image... We are at an extraordinarily dangerous point, brought there by a shortsighted man with a chip on his shoulder.

And: PREPARE RHETORICALLY, NOW--for the finding of bin Laden's corpse, or a couple of cans of WMDs, or a phony new link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Because nine out of ten alcoholics agree, it's the only thing he can do to win re-election.

As for why the grownup Republicans haven't made a move:
it's a little early yet, but expect more hints and half-hidden indications in favor of Kerry. This recent statement by retired diplomats and military is just the tip of the iceberg.

Brad DeLong writes:
>
> And why haven't the grownup Republicans made the
> same kind of move that they made back in 1987?

I think some of the possibilities people have mentioned on this thread have merit (e.g., there are fewer grown-ups now, some see an advantage of having an affable character to run with, etc.) But one *big* point here is that the unspoken coup of 1987 occurred during the latter part of the second term of a president whose possible early signs of Alzheimer's could not really be ignored...especially during a time when there still was believed to be a possible Soviet Threat. In other words, there was still a possible "and we all die" scenario then that could spark some extreme measures. Now think about 2004. Bush is in his first term, has a significant chance of being re-elected and would fight such a coup tooth and nail. And the success of such a coup would basically guarantee a huge electoral defeat in 2004. The only grown-ups who would stand up to that would have to seriously believe that that Bush would end up bringing them all down. Interestingly, there are a lot more people (especially from the military and intelligence side of things) who are beginning to come out and say out loud that the man just cannot be re-elected. ("A lot" in this case is relative; the GOP has a pretty strong "speak no evil" tradition, so that even a handful of nay-sayers is surprising.)

That said, I think there still could be such a coup. Sy Hersh is on the record as saying that there is some incredibly despicable prisoner abuse tapes out there (involving women and children). If this is true (and Hersh has been a sterling source so far), then the moment any of those are seen in public is the moment that GWB is dead in the water, electorally. And at that point, I'm not sure that anything is off the table.

Does it matter? There's such a thing as being criminally negligent or behaving in such a reckless manner that it's very likely you'll injure someone--Bush's situation (and that of the GOP that nominated him and still supports him) is at the least criminally negligent--in their attitudes and decisions regarding other people's lives and property and taxpayer dollars. So what if Bush sees that world as "with us or agin us"? That doesn't make his behavior any less criminally negligent--after a certain point (or horrible and horribly reckless and greedy behavior)--intent just doesn't matter. And to say intent doesn't matter for Bush is to apply the same standards to him that he has applied to others: when he was governor and had final say over executions--he chose not to pardon people convicted of murder when those people were of a low IQ. He filled his administration almost entirely with people who have a single point of view--he has ignored or driven out anyone who espouses different ones. His administration is notable for the number of people leaving--either because they felt driven out or could not stomach his administration's behavior. And when have so many former high up gov't types chosen to go public with their negative opinions of an administration's foreign policy?

I was always amazed that the Reagan White House objected strenuously to reports that Reagan wasn’t paying attention, or falling asleep in meetings, until they realized it worked to p.r. advantage in finessing policy questions, and later helped through some of the Iran-Contra scandal. The White House machine had turned on a dime, and ratified a new public perception. This change happened in about a month or two, and the press never made much of the switch, if anything.

It’s also important to remember that Iran-Contra ate into Reagan’s poll ratings anyway, and his damage control strategy did not help him.

In "Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator" (Greenwood Press, 1992) Kurt Ritter and David Henry identify a four-stage strategy Reagan used to control public perceptions at this time (p. 74):

(1) "Reagan argued in a priestly manner at the outset, advancing value-centered claims and conveying a confident control of the situation. When conflicting reports and facts surfaced, the president shifted ground in unexpected fashion."

(2) “Though Reagan acknowledged calamitous conditions, his efforts to situate blame proved costly to his credibility. He was forced to fix blame at least partly on his staff and, hence, on himself.”

(3) “He recovered to go on the offensive in February 1987. To replace Donald Regan as chief of staff, Reagan brought in former Senator Howard Baker, who perceived rebuilding the president’s credibility as his primary task.

(4) “In the ultimate irony for a president known as a master of public communication, Reagan adopted rhetorical reticence as the final tactic to control damage.”

From Reagan’s speech, March 4, 1987: “I’ve paid a price in terms of your trust and confidence, but I had to wait, as you have, for the complete story... As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable... [What happened] runs counter to my own beliefs... Let’s start with the part that is most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me it’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not... As a start, yesterday I met with the entire profession staff of the National Security Council. I defined for them the values I want to guide the national security policy of this country... One thing still upsetting me is that no one kept proper records of meetings or decisions... Well, rest assured, there’s plenty of record-keeping now going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... [Howard Baker] will help us forge a new partnership with Congress, especially on foreign and national security policies... Yesterday I nominated William Webster, a man of sterling reputaion, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency... He understands the meaning of “rule of law”... Proper procedures for consultation with the Congress will be followed...:

Although his popularity ratings stayed high, performance and leadership dropped, 78% of the country thought the White House was in a cover-up, and when the Tower Commission report came out, one-third of the country thought Reagan should resign. The Senate committee discussed impeachment, but they didn’t want another Nixonlike national trauma, and anyway he was a lame duck.

Bush has nothing like Reagan’s popularity rating. And he’s in a very close election where a staff shake-up could cause lost time, impugn his “moral clarity” and "decisiveness", and sink him. (It’s also not clear if someone of Howard Baker’s stature would be willing to step into save the mess of someone so shortsighted and arrogant.)

It remains to be seen whether this strategy of following the Reagan example in all things will work for Bush--when in fact, it hardly worked for Reagan in the similar case.

*...78% of the country thought the White House was in a cover-up..."

78% of the country was right too.

And, truth be told, it was the malignant "statecraft" of those "grownup" (Bush the first) Republicans DeLong seems to long for that was being "covered up".

"And many of the harshest critics of George W. Bush will acknowledge that, however wrongheaded his policies, he has not, to their knowledge, broken that same covenant."

Flat-out lie - who whould these 'many of the harshest critics' be?

It's an interesting variation on the straw-man technique,
claiming a number of unnamed persons who believe what the writer is asserting.

Does this technique have a name? Reverse Strawman?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I have to point out that Clinton was NOT lying in that famous "Ms. Lewinski" statement.

Merriam-Webster's Third International is generally considered to be the definitve dictionary of American English. Look up the phrase "sexual relations" and you will find a one-word definiton: "coitus."

Taking the offensive in a breaking scandal defies the prescriptions of the well-studied art of risk communication. It was stupid for Clinton to try to parse the scandal. While the Clinton statement may have been technically true it communicated an impression that was clearly false.

It is just as stupid for Mr. Bush to try to parse his torture policy by saying "We ordered them to obey the law." after we find they have twisted their interpretation of the law so that torture is not a criminal activity.

When you try to parse, you tacitly admit that you know what you did was wrong, but are trying to wiggle out of accepting responsibility or apologizing. Parsing makes it worse when you finally have to admit you were wrong and apologize because then, you have to apologize for all the parsing and obfuscating as well. If you are in a hole, stop digging or at least sit and think.

I failed to rely on an argument I've made in the past, but a poster upthread reminded me of it (Thanks, poster upthread!).

It's still about trust. If your surgeon amputates teh wrong leg, is it really better for you that he sincerely believed that it was the proper one? If your pediatrician misdiagnoses your child's ailments, does it matter that he's morally upright, and pious? Trust is both honesty and competence. I suspect that there is a disdain for expertise in the United States that diminishes the appreciation of competence among the electorate.

I disagree that it will take a dead Osama to win this election for Bush. As long as Bush never apologizes, he's got a chance. The "give no apologies, admit no errors" strategy is Rove's plan to win without the GOP moderates. He figures that he can get the core supporters to vote, and dismiss the rest of the electorate. However, Josh Marshall put out a note about six weeks ago (my guess from someone in the Nelson Report shop) that Pakistan intelligence was allowing how it had been informed that the "best" time to capture or kill a "high-value target" was in the last ten days of July.

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/06/prof_delong_is__1.html

Increasingly with respect to grown up Republicans I find myself in Ghandi's position when asked what he thought about Western Civilization: It would be a good thing.

I've never understood your seeming high regard for Alan Murray, who has always seemed to me to be just another intellectually dishonest, partisan, right-wing hack.

Bush 2004: Stupid, but Not Dishonest

Alan Murray's "covenant" comment is the dumbest thing I've _ever_ heard, and it's been a long year of dumb things.

It reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Homer is supposed to guard the statue of Jedidiah Springfield in the town square overnight. The next morning, the townspeople find Homer sprawled on the ground unconscious and the statue gone. Everyone assumes that he fell asleep, but Homer's defense was "I wasn't asleep! I was drunk!"

Brian C.B.--If Bush loses the Republican moderates (now slowly in progress), doesn't he lose the independent swing vote too? Bush's "core supporters" (I agree with you, a lost cause) are only 35-40% of the voters, aren't they?

There are no influential grownups associated with the Republican party. It is an extremist organization whose members have succumbed to some kind of mass consensual delusion. This is not hyperbole.

bakho wrote, "It is just as stupid for Mr. Bush to try ..."

Not really. Given all the crap the press lets the Republicans get away with, it's a reasonable strategy.

In fact, Zarqawi did travel freely within Saddam's Iraq.

And this bit is truly disingenuous (it appears to be the claim of only two al Qaeda operatives):

"'no credible evidence' that Hussein's government collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings...."

Here's what the report actually says:

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence office reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

So, fellas, looks like George W. Bush knows more than you.

From "The President of Good and Evil."

"The possibility that Bush did not really understand everything he was saying may provide an explanation of the utterly bizarre account of the reasons for attacking Iraq that he gave to reporters three months after the war ended. Speaking in the White House's Oval Office, in the presence of the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, Bush said, of Saddam Hussein, 'we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power....' Anyone who can, in all seriousness and sobriety, offer such a totally fictitious account of events of global significance that took place only three months earlier, and in which he has been the central figure, can hardly have had a firm grasp of the situation that he was supposedly directing. Perhaps Bush was not sober, or had ingested mind-altering substances, or was having a psychotic episode. None of these explanations is at all likely, but in the absence of some such explanation, Bush's astonishing statement makes it seem possible that on Iraq, he really was someone's puppet."
p. 223

Patrick, that passage you just quoted states explicitly that there does not appear to have been collaboration between Saddam and Osama, so what is your point?

"In fact, Zarqawi did travel freely within Saddam's Iraq."

Proof?

Because, if this is from the same source that made Zarqawi one-legged; or told us that there was a stock of Sarin stashed below the basement of a particular Baghdad hospital; or that Saddam had an active uranium enrichment program; or (today's credibility sap, courtesy the LA Times) that a particular interpretation of an intercepted conversation between Iraqis demonstrated Saddam's efforts to disguise his banned weapons programs in the presence of UN inspectors, well, then excuse us of the common herd from pacing this particular fantasy along.

I hear Zarqawi's presence in prewar Baghdad cited quite often as a link between Saddam and (al-Qaida-like) Islamist organizations. Little do I hear of where this citation is rooted. Frankly, given that the Administration's prewar assertions about the causes for and outcome of the war are now batting about .025 against Team Reality, the easy conclusion is: Why would anyone trust its allegations about Zaraqawi's liberty in Saddam-controlled Iraq? Why, in fact, would any but the most credulous believe any concrete projection about Iraq made by George W. Bush and his officials, given his near-perfect record of being entirely, objectively wrong about it?

What we know, however, is that Zarqawi seems to move quite freely in CPA-controlled Iraq. That much seems fairly sure. Damned permissive environment that Bush created.

Oh, by the way: a "meeting" is not a "tie" or a "relationship." Did the Ba'athist regime in Iraq collaborate with Islamist non-state terror organizations against the United States of America? The answer seems ever more firmly, "no."

Somewhere today (unfortunately, I cannot remember where--perhaps BBC online?), I saw an article about a State Dept. report that listed all the countries in which Al Queda had operated. There were 125 nations on that list--including the US. Iraq, however, was NOT on the list. The 09/11 commission report (which isn't perfect but I'd rely at least 75% on it conclusions while I rarely rely on anything the Bushies say, unless it's to think the opposite is what's happening) indicates that Hussein never responded to Al Queda's overtures. As for traveling through--again, many terrorists or terrorists in the making seem to have traveled/lived in the US, UK, Canada and members of the EU. Does that mean we can impeach Bush 43 (and sue Rumsfield, Cheney, et al) for dealing with terrorists? Besides--remember who "assisted" Bin-Laden to start, as in "had dealings with", a relationship with--our very own US government--who saw Bin-Laden as someone else or head of another organization it could use against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I'd be curious to hear responses to the post by Adrian Spidle. Nutjob for sure, but it is always fun to watch you guys go to work....

The Big Lie technique has been refined by having it come from multiple mouths and challenged by few The way Mylroie and North, Cheney and Bush, get away with swearing that Saddam is the same as Osama and the missing WMD really DID exist is simply the Orwellian principle of cognitive dissonance, of being able to hold two contradictory "facts" in mind at the same time.

Esp. since the press won't correct the lies (remember when Bush misrepresented his own economic plan in a debate with Gore and was allowed to get away with claiming the Vice President was in error-- with the facts right there on a web page for the whole world to see?),they can all claim that "there is too" evidence of their repeatedly falsified claims.

That unseen evidence is how we know that Bush served successfully in the National Guard (except that they took away his pilot's license for reasons never explained). And that's how we know tax cuts for the rich have made the economy stronger. Who are we supposed to believe? Beloved Leader or the evidence of our lying eyes?

Anyone who disagrees with such unsupported assertions may agree that the 9/11 Commission with its five Republican members and its Republican chair was simply being political during an election year. Of course that doesn't make any sense, but that's the excuse the two named minions of malice have put forward.

The result of all this bare-faced mendacity, as noted by Camus in The Rebel, is that "In the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence - through a curious transposition peculiar to our times -- it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself." In today's topsy-turvy world, instead of extraordinary claims demanding extraordinary proof, it is the doubters, cynics, and nay-sayers who are supposed to prove the negative.

The burden of proof is not on the lawbreakers in charge, but upon the challengers. At least the chocolate rations are increasing.

I meant "The Big Lie technique has been refined by having THE LIE come from multiple mouths." Sorry.

> In fact, Zarqawi did travel freely within Saddam's Iraq.

In fact, there's no evidence that Zarqawi was or is a member of al-Qaeda. In fact, there's lots more evidence that he considered himself a rival to Osama.

and there is, of course, no shortage of evidence at all that patrick sullivan, caught up in the snares of bush-enabling, can't help but say foolish things, because there is no rational basis for supporting george bush.

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Muppets love Viagra!

Kontaktanzeigen are pretty cool, aren't they?

Keep this info up!

a nice information... given by who? forgot sorry

helps me for a reporting to be held tom.