politicalpartypoop.com

By TED HAYES
Wall Street Journal Editorial

American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo — the list of slurs is long.
But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique, progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who call the Dome Village home are being “evicted” from privately owned property after 12-and-a-half years — apparently on account of my political beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of President Bush.

Here’s how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address a local Republican Women’s Club; my landlord read an article in the local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330.

Shocked, I inquired as to the seriousness of the change and the property owner blurted out that the cause of our “eviction” was “because you are Republican.”
He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.
And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and tolerance. Private property should be protected, of course, and I have no intention of causing any trouble for this property owner as we part ways. Whatever he does with his valuable land — it is only a few blocks from the Staples Center — is no concern of mine, and I will not go to court.
Still, I cannot help but be saddened by the whole business. When I founded the Dome Village 12 years ago, we had an understanding that he could ask for his property back at any time for any reason, and I would say “absolutely” without hesitation. Still, his reason was prejudice against Republicans.
We see this across the country. Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland and a Republican candidate for the Senate, has been crudely denigrated on racial grounds. A prominent leftist Web site, for instance, depicted him as “Sambo,” among other aspersions. When Condoleezza Rice was nominated as Secretary of State, she faced similar treatment: editorial cartoons depicting her as a racial caricature, personalities calling her “Aunt Jemima” on liberal talk radio, and so forth. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell and other black conservatives regularly face similar smears.

These conservatives are attacked not because of the validity or judicious consideration of their views but because those views are supposedly heterodox for American blacks. Yet it is my opinion that many black people in the U.S. are politically and philosophically conservative — and many are in fact actually closeted Republicans, fearful of persecution by friends, business associates, society clubs, school mates and even churches.

It is time for American blacks to have a conversation about the phenomenon of Democrats persecuting black Republicans. Why is this happening? What is it that the Democrats don’t want black folks to understand about Republicans? What is it that the Democrats don’t want black folks to know about Democrats? And how is it that we have come to this point — after having endured so much — where we have ourselves curtailed the freedom of political expression through the threat of retaliatory consequences?

Mr. Hayes is a homeless activist in Los Angeles

There is nothing on the news, so I have to revert back to my Oprah mode today.
In recent weeks, I have posted shit on the craziness of women, mainly because it’s all over the news, and on the web. I have even read some blogs of women who are frankly fucken nutz! Hell, even this morning I was peeping the Today show and the topic was about young teenage girl bullies.
I wish I could put my finger on it but young teen girls, young adult women and women in general are more fucked up today than ever.
Is it lack of dads growing up, sorry ass moms, television, movies, the web, hell I don’t know but the trend of craziness is growing.
Now keep this a secret….. but I have been watching this show called “L-Word”. So this topic is not something I have pulled out of my ass.

Now before you start ranting I love women. My mom and wife both live with me (and get along with each other, (I am blessed). I am moodier then both of them put together, so what I’m about to say isn’t about them. (Yes Mrs. Snoop reads this blog on occasion). And I love other women too. My surrogate sisters, my daughters, my daughter-in-laws. Even my interns at work! I’ve often said if I ever had my own company, I’d hire all women. They’re often better employees - harder working, smarter, and just nicer people in general. Plus, I like looking at the pretty ones. I’m not a woman hater or basher.
I have worked in two places where I was the only man in the department. Frankly I prefer to be surrounded by women.

NOW with that said, I’m just wondering: What is fuck is up with some of you women? Seriously. I can’t tell you how many otherwise normal females I have lately seem to totally wacked out over what are essentially small things, and then (this is the part that fucks with my head) they wonder why no one sane wants to be around them.
Hello!! Who wants to have anything to do with someone who is throwing things (whether its mean words or objects) at anyone who comes near?

The trigger can be something their man does or doesn’t do (he didn’t call me for a day, he forgot my favorite color, he didn’t notice my new perfume, etc). It can be over some slight at work (they praised her and not me, he implied I was lazy, she didn’t want to have lunch with me, etc.). Or it can be an upset caused by mere strangers (she acted like she was better then me, he stared at my tits, they cut me off in mid-sentence, etc.). Things that are truly aggravating, to be sure. However, my road rage or upset over losing a football game is nothing compared to the drama and chaos some women seem to engage in on a regular basis. Let’s get real for a minute.
If a man who normally means the world to you and who treats you like a princess does one tiny inconsiderate thing, does that mean you are going to be mad at him for weeks or that it’s entirely over with him? If it does, he’s lucky to out of your crazy world!

If you have a bigger issue with someone then just that “Straw that broke the camels back” then own up to it and stop pretending it was just that one small item that set you off. If it was that one small item, then get a fucken grip!

I’m not going to blame hormones or let the LADIES off with that excuse. If you are intelligent enough to figure out your own zip code, you have to know whether or not you get crazy once a month, and if so take steps not to nuke every person and relationship you value during your crazy time. Given warning, most males or people with a survival instinct will do all they can to avoid a crazy ass woman who is otherwise normal most of the month. But just don’t expect us to not notice and resent the craziness!

If the worst and the best day of your life happens in the same week, you have got “roller coaster” problems, and are probably addicted to drama and chaos. Those of you who have a habit of making poor life decisions should just stop blaming the rest of the world for the fact that you can’t seem to be happy….Whose fault is it if you cannot make it a month (or less) without blowing up over something.

Stop taking out your problems on other people. If you like drama that much, you might want to try acting! There’s plenty of community theaters looking for performers! If you need to abuse something or someone, join the roller derby or take up boxing, write a blog!

Most people (especially men) are not mind readers. If you have something to say, then fucken say it. Or step off. Don’t drop hints. Don’t be passive aggressive. Don’t wait for someone to care. (cause most of time we don’t) Say what you want to say, and then face the consequences (don’t expect someone to like being bitched at!).
Try to be logical!! If you want a male to understand what you are communicating, it is going to have to make some sense to them. So ranting will not get your message across, unless your message is “I am crazy. Run away fast!”

If you have an issue with someone, there is no need to communicate that fact while in tears, or through veiled innuendoes, or fucken losing your mind.
If you can’t be calm, then don’t try to do anything important while you are (mental) That’s not time to make important decisions.
If you need to vent, or some time to calm down, then explain that fact (quickly) and wait until you are “normal” (whatever that is for you) before trying to talk with another human being about what is bothering you. You won’t do nearly as much damage to yourself and your relationships! Most people, especially men, do not hear what you are saying if you are crying or yelling or just being an idiot!

If you want other people to figure you out, (you) better have yourself figured out first . If you are chronically unhappy but think that those around you need to cut you some slack, the odds are real high that you are a crazy person, and the only slack you deserve may be in the arms of your straight jacket!

Here’s a hint to women (or people in general) who can’t seem to EVER really be happy in life if every relationship, job, or activity in your life ends (often in pain) or at the very least is often on the brink of ending, THE PROBLEM MAY BE WITH YOU!! Nothing lasts forever, but most people don’t prematurely, and deliberately, kill off the good things they find! People who go from one thing to another (relationship, job, career, hobby, etc), but never find lasting happiness, are often subconsciously sabotaging any chance at a sustained contented life. Why? Because they are masochistic, they actually like the chaos, or they don’t believe they deserve good things!

OK, here’s a short quiz to help you figure it out if you are nutz…. oops if this pertains to you. Just answer “yes” or “no” to these 10 questions:

1. Have you had two or more spouses?

2. Have you broken up with the same someone (or just about) more than 3 times in one year? Extra points if the (near or real) break-ups were all within 6 months.

3. Has anyone ever told you that you were high maintenance (you get extra points for each person who’s said that to you)? It doesn’t matter if you believed them or agree.

4. Do you think that no one in your life has every really truly understood or appreciated you?

5. Do you often rely upon drugs or liquor to help you calm down?

6. Does your own family avoid being around most of the time, or vice versa?

7. Do you rarely go a full day without feeling “different” or “weird” or just extra “unique”?

8. Do you often think other people (especially other women) are jealous of you?

9. Was the last calm & happy period in your life so far back in time that you don’t really remember it very well?

10. Do you think most happy or content people are just settling for less than they could get if they just insisted on more, held out for better, or pushed harder?

Give yourself one point for each yes answer. If you score 5 or higher, you are approaching crazy and need to step back before you get that far. If you score 7 or more you are fucked up and need to either get professional help or get used to living alone without any truly good close friends!

Stop the madness. If you don’t want to be treated like some crazy bitch, then just don’t act crazy! Get some therapy if you are unhappy most of the time. Or get used to being a bitch and embrace all that comes with it. If you think it’s fine to be so crazy go for it - just don’t expect me or other sane people to stick around you for long! The world does not revolve around you. It revolves around me!

David Limbaugh

“You can call me anything you want, but do not call me a racist,” said an indignant President George Bush on Dec. 12, commenting on the despicable, opportunistic suggestion that any inadequacies in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina were due to racism.
But veteran network media giants Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw don’t quite see it that way. Indeed, they don’t appear to see eye-to-eye with President Bush on much of anything if their joint interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” is any indication.
Russert was uncharacteristically tame toward these two, offering them repeated softballs concerning the past year’s main stories. But the relaxed atmosphere gave us a clearer picture of the worldview these men share, which is doubtless representative of most of the Old Media players.
From race and taxes to health care and Iraq, they spoke in a monolithic liberal voice, accented by its familiar air of moral superiority.
Koppel began by vigorously defending the media for introducing the issue of race into Katrina. “But the question had to be asked,” said Koppel, “if that had been a section of a city that was populated by middle-class white people, would the response have been the same? … I think there was just a feeling that you didn’t have to be as engaged as I think the federal government would have been.”
Brokaw agreed. “I think Ted is correct when he says it was not overt or active racism.” But it sure must have been subconscious racism, huh, Tom?
It bothers me deeply when race hucksters play the race card on Katrina for political gain, knowing it is outrageously unfair. But I think it troubles me more to hear these two supposed paragons of 20th-century journalism smugly level the charge and, apparently, actually believe it.
Superficially distancing themselves from the allegation that racism was directly involved didn’t mitigate it in the least. In fact, if President Bush’s alleged bigotry were so deeply rooted as to affect his actions without even stirring his moral impulses, he would probably be a more consummate racist than the guy who consciously considers race while discriminating.
Isn’t it ironic that in their sanctimony against perceived racism, presumably because of the evil of one group feeling superior to another, these two sermonizers reveal their absolute certitude of moral superiority over those who reject their liberal worldview? And their self-righteousness wasn’t limited to race but included almost all other issues they discussed.
On Iraq, Brokaw talked about “this disconnect between those people who are in uniform and fighting this war over there and a large portion of our population because no sacrifice is being asked of anyone at home. The president is not asking us to conserve oil or to ration gasoline or to push hard for alternative sources of energy in this conflict.”
Then Koppel eagerly chimed in, “Or to pay a nickel more in taxes.”
Let’s not allow the inanity of their analysis to obscure the thrust of their message: “We are better people than average Americans, especially conservatives, because we care more, even if we don’t personally sacrifice more than they do.”
On health care, Koppel observed, “You can get the best medical care in the world. … I can. Most Americans can’t. And there are 43 million Americans who aren’t getting any medical care at all. That is a scandal.”
No, what is scandalous is that Koppel so glibly equates lack of insurance with no medical care. What is repulsive is his implication that we have so many uninsured simply because we don’t care enough. And what is intolerably hypocritical is that he probably gave Bill Clinton a pass when he didn’t put a dent in the number of uninsured despite campaigning on the issue. Clinton was excused because he pretended to care.
It was amusing to witness the elitist duo adopt the Democratic Party line on other issues as well, from President Bush’s reputed refusal to admit his “mistakes” to his unwillingness to reach across party lines. And let’s not forget his failure to give inspections “a little more time” and “to reach out more” to other nations before attacking Iraq.
But why all the fuss? These venerable heavyweights aren’t liberal. They just see the world through clearer lenses and operate on a higher moral plane. Reporting, even editorializing, from this perspective doesn’t betray a liberal bias but defines objectivity. And those who deviate from their worldview are simply flawed, and racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy, uncompassionate and – oh, yes – conservative.

By Mark Miller

TOP HUMAN sexuality research team has just revealed the answer to one of man’s greatest, age-old quandaries about women — namely, what women think about while having sex!

The results of the five-year research study, published in the current Journal of Psychological Sexuality, make it clear that while in the midst of the typical act of intercourse, women have quite a lot on their minds.

“This contradicts the popular theory that during sex, women’s minds go blank so they can focus totally on giving and receiving pleasure,” reveals research study leader Rana Thomas, of the Spaulding Institute. “According to our research, the only time women’s minds actually go blank is when they’re attempting to watch and understand a sports game.”

For the study, women were asked to fill out detailed questionnaires of their thoughts during each sex act. Some enthusiastic participants even filled out the questionnaires during their sex acts. The results — 97 percent of women think about some or all of the following while making love:

•Whether or not she loves her partner and he loves her.
•If his sexual technique is “pleasing her.”
•Her next shopping excursion.
•Brad Pitt.
•”While I appreciate the energy he’s expending to find my G-Spot, he’s no Christopher Columbus.”
•Haagen-Dazs Chocolate Chocolate-Chip ice cream.
•”That ceiling could sure use another coating of paint.”
•Shoes.
•Whether her partner might think her rear end is too fat.
•Jackhammers. The remaining 3 percent of the women surveyed, who are primarily members of the Religious Right, were preoccupied during sex with the following thoughts:
•Hoping it ends soon.
•Jesus.
•”Things would be so much less icky if people didn’t have genitals.”
•President Bush.
•Mel Gibson.
•Her husband in a nice suit.
•Shoes. In comparison, a similar research study directed toward men, revealed that 100 percent of all men, during sex, are thinking about:
•Pamela Anderson.
•Angelina Jolie.
•Halle Berry.
•Salma Hayek.
•”Oh, yeah, baby, I bet you never had it this good!”
•Friends, neighbors, and relatives they’d like to “bang.”
•Beer.
•Favorite sports teams.
•Their dream job — being a photographer for Playboy magazine.
•Acquiring the superpower of X-ray vision to see through women’s clothing.
•Winning the state lottery.
•Jackhammers. Thomas is already at work on related studies, including what gays and lesbians think about during sex, what animals think about during sex, and what space aliens think about during sex.

Parts of original Story Text
By Michael Smerconish
and American RadioWorks

Check out the story in the USA Today(link), then also peep the story below.
5 years after 9/11 common sense is finally kicking in.

USA TODAY STORY: Airport security uses talk as tactic

Arguably, it is Melendez we can thank for the fact that Flight 93 never completed its mission of striking a symbol of democracy in Washington, and instead crashed into a field in Western Pennsylvania.

A month before the September 11 attacks, a customs inspector in Orlando, Florida refused admission to a Saudi man. The inspector was Jose Melendez-Perez. He told the commission that Saudis come through Orlando often. They’re on their way to Disneyworld, but this traveler was different.

“My first impression of the subject was that he was a young male, well groomed with short hair, thin mustache, black long sleeved shirt, black trousers and black shoes,” said Melendez-Perez. “He was about 5′6″ and in impeccable shape. He had a military appearance. I had the impression of the subject that he had knowledge of interview techniques and had military training.”

“I noticed that he did not have a return airline ticket or hotel reservation. My first question to the subject through the interpreter, why he was not in possession of a return airline ticket. The subject became visibly upset and in an arrogant and threatening manner, which include pointing his finger at my face, stated that he did not know where he was going when he departed the United States. What first came to mind at this point was the subject was a hit man. A hit man doesn’t know where he’s going because if he’s caught, that way he doesn’t have anything or any information to bargain with. My wife said that I was watching too much movies.”

It was Melendez, working as an immigration inspector, who stopped Mohamed al Kahtani when he sought entrance to the United States at the Orlando International Airport. Kahtani was then a Saudi national who came before Melendez as he worked in secondary screening, simply because Kahtani had incorrectly filled out a Customs Declaration Form. Kahtani claimed not to speak English. Melendez put Kahtani’s basic data into his computer, and it came up negative. His documents appeared genuine. And a check of his possessions was also unremarkable.

But Melendez still didn’t let him pass.

To the consternation of his colleagues who were concerned about the political power of Saudi nationals, Melendez kept probing.

Why?

“My job requires me to know the difference between legitimate travelers to the U.S. and those who are not,” he told the 9/11 Commission. “This included potential terrorists.”

Keep in mind - this is a month before 9/11.

“Upon establishing eye contact, he exhibited body language and facial gestures that appeared arrogant. In fact, when I first called his name in the secondary room and matched him with papers, he had a deep staring look.”

“I then told him that without knowledge of the English language or a hotel reservation,” said Melendez-Perez, “he would have difficulty getting around Orlando. He answered that there was someone waiting for him upstairs. When asked the person’s name he changed story and said no one was meeting him. The subject was very hostile throughout the entire interview that took approximately one and a half hours.”

As Melendez would later tell the 9/11 Commission about Kahtani, “He just gave me the creeps”.

Of significance, the would-be terrorist who claimed not to speak English, found a command of the language when Melendez rejected him, saying “I’ll be back”. The next time Kahtani encountered the United States, it was fighting our soldiers in Afghanistan, post 9-11. He is now at Guantanamo.

And here is the kicker. What we now know is that at precisely the moment that Mohamed al Kahtani was being given his walking papers by Jose Melendez at the Orlando Airport on August 4, 2001, there to pick up the new arrival was 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. That was one of the more interesting details to emerge from the work of the 9/11 Commission. And that is why Democratic 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, told Melendez, in front of the 9/11 Commission, that his conduct had arguably spared the Capitol or White House an attack. In other words, Ben-Veniste reasoned, with the added muscle of Kahtani on board Flight 93, the terrorists could have fended off the passenger revolt and continued toward Washington.
——————————-
It is entirely plausible to suggest that the actions of Melendez in doing his job efficiently and competently may well have contributed to saving the Capitol or White House, and all the people who were in those buildings. Liberals would of course argue that this dudes rights were violated and other bullshit. Screw the civil liberties crap. We are fighting a war, with the extremists pricks want to harm Americans. America must be technologically, socially vigilant and aware to combat the threat of terrorism.

A SALE IS USUALLY “NOT” A SALE!

Ok Snoop got out amongst the world to do some Christmas shopping over the last few days and it was a subtle reminder why I hate shopping so much.
It’s clear why people are in such debt today. People are more than willing to part with their money with a minimal attempt by stores to deceive the shopping masses.
I peeped the mens section of “The Jones Store” a store that I usually like and a store that on occasion has some good deals. But I looked at the prices at their shit and was completely caught off guard by the prices and the not so subtle deception.
They has shit marked off (30, 40 and 50 percent) and basic shirts, polos, pants, ties were ridiculously overpriced. I do enough shopping to know the basic value of various clothing items and shoes to know what is a good price and what is not.
I overhead one lady talk about how she thought the prices “could not be beat.”
I overheard people rave about the bargains in these stores and I was just dumbfounded by the utter stupidity of these folks.
Think for a minute people, if you are Christmas shopping for lets say your husband and you rarely, if ever shop for shirts, pants and ties how the fuck would you know if it’s a good bargain if you only did this type of shopping during the holiday shopping season?
Kohls is the best example of a store that has “sales” every fucken day. Their shit is not on sale people if it’s the same fucken price everyday!
If stores say a price is marked 40 or 50 percent off does it not occur to people that the baseline price was raised to get it back in line with the regularly posted price.
The “sale” sign at the top of the rack is only for “effect”.
Snoop’s not tryin’ to tell you how to spend your money but damm, I swear these idiots were out in mass.

SHOPPING WITH KIDS

It’s apparent that I don’t peep the malls much. We don’t have one here in Lawrence
(thank God)but Mom and I browsed the one in Topeka.
In addition to my astonishment with stupid shoppers, I was equally as astonished with the rudeness and belligerence of the children accompanying many of these parents.
Now I know children are generally more fucked up today, but DAMM!
I listened as one loudmouth teen basically verbally bitched slapped her mother, even at one point referring to her mom as “retarded” and “stupid.”
Another kid threw a toy at her mom, after her mother informed her that she would not be receiving that particular toy for Christmas.
Other kids either hitting (yes physical contact) or just flat out ignoring their moms was commonplace.
The one thing that stood out was that most of these were little girls.
What is in the water these days that causes little girls now to grow up and be such crazy little bitches.
Have I missed something?

WHAT CIVIL LIBERTIES?

As I mentioned in the other post liberals are bitching and moaning about how the Bush administration is striping the American citizens of civil liberties.
I keep thinking about this more and more because I honestly wonder are people truly concerned about this issue because they are concerned about society at large or is it just bullshit talk?
I think back to when my kids were little, hell I regularly phone tapped their conversations and paid close attention to visitors and on certain circumstances would search through possessions.
I have always believed that kids don’t have rights, fuck em. My house was a dictatorship and rightly so. My belief was the better your grades were in school, the more freedom I would give you. Hence my oldest daughter was given far greater leeway that my two younger children.
But I use to always say to them, why would you care if you don’t have shit to hide?
All of these pretend civil liberty advocates bitching about the perceived loss of freedoms makes me wonder. What do YOU have to hide?
Typical liberal hypocrisy on this issue.
Remember when Robert Bork was eyeing the Supreme Court, liberals went through his video and library rentals to dig up dirt on him.
Liberals had no problem with going through Clarence Thomas’s trash to dig up dirt on him.
Thanks to Charles Schummer (New York - D) Michael Steel’s credit report circulated through blogsphere. You just know all niggas credit is fucked up.
Liberals wanted to peep into the medical 411 of Rush Limbaugh to discredit him. I wonder why?
You people need to get over yourselves and your grandstanding on this issue.
I posted about a website where individuals trap perverts into having conversations with them.
Some of these sick fucks would argue that this activity somehow violates some form civil liberties.
These perverts are actually trying to get laws changed to make it easier for them to molest children. Is monitoring these bastards some violation of civil liberties?

When Clinton monitored the projects for suspected drug and gang activities, where the fuck were you liberals then? It was ok, to have niggas peeped on by the President, but Bush can’t peep in on Terrorists who want to attack this country. I feel ya!

Some of you people monitor and eavesdrop on your neighbors, girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, children. Employers monitor e-mails of employees and prohibit inner office relationships, is this a violation of civil liberties.
You can buy a scanner that monitors individuals phone calls. How many of you have engaged in such activity?

Bottom line if you not planing on blowing up a building, or running a fucken plane into a building Bush does not give a fuck about what you do.
So go back to monitoring your girlfriends e-mails. After you find out who the mystery man is, then give my your rant on Bush’s violation of civil liberties.

12/25/05 UPDATE

When Snoop is bored I troll some of the extremists blogs and I find some of the most ridiculous shit white people comment about.
I tried to comment on these blogs but to no avail. I got outed by one redneck racist site. They don’t let Niggers comment, imagine that!
Since I can’t make fun of them on their sites I will post regular stupid shit they say here on the Zone.
You want to know why there is racism and why it will NEVER go away, because these bastards breed. This country is diseased with intellectual ignorance and stupidity.
These bastards lay quiet and dormant. Hence the careful screening on their blogs.
They jack off to each other’s utter stupidity.
But, keep in mind. These people are everywhere, our neighbors, friends, co-workers, church buddies.
Racism is rarely open, blatant, obvious.
Racism and racists attitudes don’t just slap you in the face where you can say: THERE IT IS! The comments are funny in some respect and alarming at the same time.
Snoop likes to have some fun at “whitey’s”” expense.
———-

jn6
Re: The Retardation of Black Africa
Quote:Originally Posted by Trivialator
Yes because it’s the main reason why blacks want to leave Africa and risk their lives just to get here. Do you think it’s because they like the scenery or something?

Yes! Seriously, they come here because America is so much better. Better technology, better legal system, better politics, you name, we got it and it’s better. Even our women are better. They know that, and they want that.They can’t have that in Africa because while they may have been around a lot longer than some other races, they know nothing about how to build a country. America was built generation after generation after generation. In the time that America was created, 1700’s to today, what happened in Africa? And the same with native Americans. Maybe they were happy living like they were. That’s fine. Go grab a tipi and eat some fried rat, I don’t care. Maybe the negro tribes had knowledge that we didn’t. Maybe Who knows? Who cares???? I sure don’t. Nor do I “have to”. Maybe in another star system the negroes were a superior race. Personally I don’t see how, but I do know they aren’t now. They may have had the knowledge. But if you don’t use it, you lose it. And they ain’t using it now nor were they then. And right now it’s the White Race that pushed into outer space. It’s the White Race that pushed nuclear power into existance. Where are these super-brain negroes at? They’re living in grass huts eating insects. And that’s just fine. Let them.There are clearly very intelligent negroes. I won’t discount that. Just like there are from nearly every race on Earth. But those are rare. If they want to build a space shuttle and put it into orbit, be my guest. But do it in Africa. Or Asia. Or wherever their tribe is from. I just want them to GO HOME!!!!

White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

By: 357magnum
Hmm that’s a tough one.

I guess that I do see whites as superior to other races in alot of ways. But, I mean, at the same time I don’t really wish any harm on other races in general. I just want whites to shed the self hating inferiority type mentality that many of us seem to have these days. Revival of the culture. Revival of our pride. We sure do have alot to be proud of. More than any other race.
This doesn’t mean of course that I don’t wish death upon blacks who rape white women or rob and attack white people. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t wish we could ship all these Zionist jews who have infiltrated our government to Israel. I just mean in general. Let them live how they want to live and let them have all the racial pride in the world if they want to. But not at my house. White folks rule over here.

By: Franz Mageson
Re: White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

Being brutally honest about the reality of nature, equal does not exist no two people are equal, let alone Races. The non-White Races when compared to the White Race are marked by there own example as being inferior, with the black Race being the bottom feeders of the Racial totem pole.
Nature has declared that there most be a superior and inferior, a top and bottom. Culture seems to be the new code word for Race. Without the Race that built the Culture, Culture means nothing. We must work to de P.C ourselfs totally in all areas.

By Molitor
Re: White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

I bitterly object to the Jew program of integrating Negros and Whites. Turn on the TV, all you see anymore is Blacks with Whites, as if drilling it home to the subconscious. Grinning Mullato faces. Makes me very angry.
Blacks didn’t invent anything in Africa in 4,000 years, not even the wheel. They are still primitive, and when confronted with White culture and society, they resist and revert back to their primitive savage ways, as evidenced in South Africa today or New Orleans. They learn the White man’s magic, but a spade is a spade is a spade.
You could say I am a White preservationist.

From: abig_WASP!
Re: White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

I am under the idea that the term ‘White Supremact’ means those who adhere to the idea that Whites should rule over non-whites, which I am completly not interested in. Let them rule themselves and let them fail. At the same time there is no denying that White culture is higher than that of other races. Even people like Michael Savage (radio personality) admits that, and he is a Libertairian racial jew.
So ‘yes’ I believe the White race is superior, I have no interest in Whites ruling non-whites, and at the same time, I am proud of my people and culture. So all of the above with a tiny exception.
The white race always was and always will be the master race! Don’t let the Jews influence you else wise. I would love to own a plantation. We already support most minorities with taxes, might as well get some work out of them.
I can still taste the mint juleps from earlier years.

From: aprilness
White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

I assure you ‘the jews’ are not influencing my not wanting to rule over non-whites. We can do our own work and send the non-whites back to their own lands. Not only do I not want them working for me, I don’t want to see them or live anywhere near them.
Plantations are nice, I would hire hard working Whites. Non-whites don’t deserve to be anywhere near my land. Having non-whites around causes lots of problems. Namely keeping them from mating with Whites. As you should already know, 90% of Africans living in America have some amount of White genetics in them. I wonder what caused that?
Whites who want to own Negros or any other race need to move to that country and keep these non-whites out of mine.

As we celebrate this joyous holiday season……. PEACE AND GOODWILL TO ALL MEN……….LOL!

Why liberal democrats are playing too fast and too loose with issues of war and peace
By Joe Kline

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, engaged in a small but cheesy bit of deception last week. She released a letter, which quickly found its way to the front page of the New York Times, that she had written on Oct. 11, 2001, to then National Security Agency director General Michael V. Hayden. In it she expressed concern that Hayden, who had briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the steps he was taking to track down al-Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks, was not acting with “specific presidential authorization.” Hayden wrote her back that he was acting under the powers granted to his agency in a 1981 Executive Order. In fact, a 2002 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committees concluded that the NSA was not doing as much as it could have been doing under the law—and that the entire U.S. intelligence community operated in a hypercautious defensive crouch. “Hayden was taking reasonable steps,” a former committee member told me. “Our biggest concern was what more he could be doing.”

The Bush Administration had similar concerns. In the days after 9/11, it asked Hayden to push the edge of existing technology and come up with the best possible program to track the terrorists. The result was the now infamous NSA data-mining operation, which began months later, in early 2002. Vast amounts of phone and computer communications by al-Qaeda suspects overseas, including some messages to people in the U.S., could now be scooped up and quickly analyzed.

The release of Pelosi’s letter last week and the subsequent Times story (”Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show”) left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn’t exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, “Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it’s all fruit.”

A dodgy response at best, but one invested with a larger truth. For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are “fruit,” and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders.
Henry Kissinger even wiretapped his own aides. But the “all fruit” assumption doesn’t take into account the strict constraints placed on the intelligence community after the Nixon debacle, or the lethally elusive nature of the current terrorist threat. The liberal reaction is also an understandable consequence of the Bush Administration’s tendency to play fast and loose on issues of war and peace—rushing to war after overhyping the intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear-weapons program, appearing to tolerate torture, keeping secret prisons in foreign countries and denying prisoners basic rights. At the very least, the Administration should have acted, with alacrity, to update the federal intelligence laws to include the powerful new technologies developed by the NSA.

But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.
There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.
Pelosi made clear to me that she considered Hayden, now Deputy Director of National Intelligence, an honorable man who would not overstep his bounds. “I trust him,” she said. “I haven’t accused him of anything. I was, and remain, concerned that he has the proper authority to do what he is doing.” A legitimate concern, but the Democrats are on thin ice here. Some of the wilder donkeys talked about a possible Bush impeachment after the NSA program was revealed.

The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate Democrats. Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well, if its details were declassified and made known.
In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo’s family in the right-to-die case last year.

But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country.

WELCOME BACK TO THE ZONE YOU IDIOT BASTARD!

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Dems - including Sen. Hillary Clinton - have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.
That little detail didn’t faze Dean, however - who insisted with a straight face to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:
“There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat.” Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.
Dean continued: “This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we’ve looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that’s true.”
Last week, Sen. Clinton’s office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.
Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Sens. Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski - as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.

LETS TRY THIS AGAIN……

If you liberal Democrats want to play the semantics game here go ahead.
This is just a further example of the Democrats grasping at ANYTHING to make their case.
When the news broke a few days ago you liberals were quick to say SEE THOSE GREEDY REPUBLICANS, then after it came out that Democrats took money as well, you called it Republican spin, NOW, fuckhead Dean makes a statement on CNN trying to deny it all together now the blog troops go out and try to sell his statement to the ignorant masses. GET A FUCKEN CLUE PEOPLE!

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue’s Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek WillisWashington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005
But Abramoff didn’t work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Graphic
Bipartisan Spread Many of the top beneficiaries of the campaign contributions that Jack Abramoff and his team of lobbyists directed from Indian tribes were Democratic legislators.

————————————————
Abramoff, Indian-Tribe Money Reached Deep Inside U.S. Congress - May 19 2005

Dorgan returns Abramoff money - December 14, 2005

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., received more than $55,000 in contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff and a colleague of the controversial lobbyist, campaign disclosure reports show.

—————————–
Reid, other Democrats also feed at Abramoff hog trough
by steverino
Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:37:40 PM PDT
DAILY KOS ENTRY
“Update: Please, let’s not have anybody try to defend Reid (and Ensign) on grounds that they were defending Nevada gaming. A number of California Indian tribes, much closer to Las Vegas and Reno than Louisiana is, already have casino gambling. I can accept that excuse for Breaux and Landrieu defending local gambling, but not for Reid (or Ensign). And, again, $66,000 isn’t exactly pocket money.Now, more Republicans than Democrats, especially higher up the leadership ranks, participated in this. But, with Reid himself signing off, it’s a lot harder for Democrats to raise this as a partisan issue. That means it’s much less likely that, outside any trials, Congress will take any official further looks at it.”

————————
but them you have this…….

What was that about Abramoff giving money to Democrats? by John in DC - 1/04/2006 01:15:00 AM
Here is the list of who Abramoff gave money to, per Michael Petrelis’ research:
$172,933 - Republican$88,985 - special interesttotal: $261,918That’s 229 donations and not a DIME to Democrats.The list of donations is long, but it makes a great visual, so I’m posting it anyway. Next time you hear someone say that this is a bipartisan scandal, whip out this list and laugh.

FROM AMERICABLOG

I’M GONNA ASK AGAIN…..ARE YOU LIBERALS HIGH ON CRACK OR JUST DRUNK?

TRANSCRIPT: Rush Limbaugh Show

The Risen book, the excerpts in the Risen book. What’s the name of this book, the idiot book? I can’t remember. “State of War,” is the name of the book. This is a guy that wrote the New York Times piece December 16th, got all this hullabaloo going, and here’s the story, and the story misses about 30% of the import of this, I think. (Story) “The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, may have handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book which has ruffled the US national security establishment. ‘State of War’ by James Risen, the New York Times reporter who exposed…”

I’m sorry, the New York Times advocate and arbiter “who exposed the Bush administration’s controversial domestic spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran’s nuclear drive. But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said. The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code-named Operation Merlin and ‘may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA,’ according to Risen.” Now, when you read that, “Wow!” You focus on Clinton, and you focus on the fact that the CIA was trying — and this is, by the way, from what I understand, pretty common. If you know people around us and they need to steal technology, or they need to get it through counterespionage, and you know they’re trying to get it, give it to them. Just give them a bunch of garbage and give a bunch of garbage that won’t work once they put it together.

Now, Risen thinks that the important thing about this is that the CIA botched something real badly and that the CIA didn’t take into account that the Russians would be able to notice the errors in the leaked instructions, talking about a firing set here. What they did, the plan, “called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet nuclear program, to offer Iran the blueprint for a ‘firing set’ — the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion. According to Risen’s book, the agent, posing as a greedy Russian scientist keen to steel secrets, delivered to plans as instructed by the CIA to Iran’s mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. He had been told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans — and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran’s nuclear knowledge.

“But, contrary to orders not to open the packet, [the double agent] added a note which made it clear he could help fix the flaws — for money. The CIA declined to comment in detail on the book’s claims on Iran — but issued a vigorous condemnation of Risen’s work and methods. Jennifer Millerwise, CIA Director of Public Affairs, said, ‘Readers deserve to know that every chapter of State of War contains serious inaccuracies. The author’s reliance on anonymous sources begs the reader to trust that these are knowledgeable people. As this book demonstrates, anonymous sources are often unreliable.” All right. Now, this happened in 2000. That’s six years ago. Okay, so this is the first thing that jumped out at me. If the CIA has put together this secret plan called codename Operation Merlin, and its purpose was to foul up the Iranian’s attempt to successfully build firing sets that trigger the nuclear explosion, the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion, what is the first thing you conclude from that?

They were working on a nuclear bomb as far back as 2000! The Iranians were working on a nuclear bomb as far back as 2000, because if they weren’t, if they weren’t working on a nuclear bomb, then why would you need this operation? Why would you need Operation Merlin? The second thing that sort of stands out at me is, if you read more of the story, the excerpt, you find out the Russians were the ones helping the Iranians. So you have to know that this plan was kind of screwy because you have to figure that the Russians are going to figure out they’ve got a bad set of instructions here, whether you got this bogus agent or not. The whole plan seems kind of… It just doesn’t seem to be all that well thought out. This plan seemed easy — easy to figure out on the part of the Iranians and the Russians. The Russians are helping the Iranians. Forget the double agent here. That’s not even important.

You had a greedy double agent who offered to sell to the Iranians the corrections to the mistakes the CIA was trying to get him to feed to the Iranians, but you don’t even need that — the Iranians don’t — because they’re working with the Russians already, and the double agent is a recalcitrant, fed-up, teed-off Russian nuclear scientist. So they’re already working with people who can spot the error. That’s the incompetence. Whoever put this program together at the CIA didn’t stop to think about it. Now, there’s a third question. There’s a third question, and that is was this a rogue operation or did Clinton know about it? And the reason I ask that question is this: If they had taken this to Clinton, would Clinton have authorized it? I don’t get the impression Clinton cared a whit about this kind of stuff. He didn’t want to tackle big issues. He hadn’t tackled terrorism. He hadn’t tackled anything that was big. He didn’t want to upset his approval numbers.

These are things that we don’t know, but I’m guessing here that the CIA learned six years ago Iran’s working on a nuclear bomb, that’s the big deal out of this. So if you want to take the big news out of this, it’s that: Iran’s been working on this for a long time. Some people don’t believe that to this day, and the reason that’s important, you’ve got that (sigh) hack ElBaradei at the UN running around saying they’re only months way. You have the European Union negotiating and trying to use diplomacy to get this insane lunatic that runs Iran to give up the program or to stall it. He’s saying, “Hell, no! We’re going to go ahead with this plan, and who do you think you are? We want to become one of the nuclear club, and we’re getting close and close and close.” Now, in the current climate with the CIA having botched weapons of mass destruction along with everybody else’s intelligence prewar — and we’re still not sure that they botched it. We know that Saddam had it, but let’s just take the current template, the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is the CIA blew it on weapons of mass destruction. They blew it on prewar intel. Everything they knew was wrong. They didn’t get anything right. They haven’t been able to do a decent job on anything in the last 25 years, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Okay, now, here’s ElBaradei out there saying, “Well, we’re six, seven months away from the Iranians having a nuclear weapon.” There was a story yesterday: Iran’s already figured out how to separate uranium from the ore and get yellow cake, and that means they didn’t have to send Joe Wilson to Niger to try to buy some. I mean, it’s already taken care of. The CIA comes out and says all that stuff now, is anybody going to believe ‘em? If the Bush administration came out and said, “We’ve got a big problem in Iran. They’re this close to a nuclear weapon. We’ve got to do something about it,” you know what the catcalls in this country would be from the American left or from the Democratic Party? “There goes Bush again, lying to get the American people all ginned up in fear so we can get another war going in Iran so we can go beat up some more Muslims,” and so forth. Nobody would believe it. That’s what the important part of this story is to me is. Risen doesn’t even get this. This is something he didn’t even get. This guy is not even smart enough to know what he’s learned in his own reporting. This guy doesn’t figure it out. He’s off on some tangent about how the CIA blew their program. The fact is, Risen, this is a tantamount admission or evidence that Iran has been working on a nuclear plant at least for six years — and I don’t think that’s insignificant in the context of the Middle East or in the context of the world.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: In the break I’ve been pointed to a column on this very subject that I opened the program with by Michael Ledeen at National Review Online. He was friends with James Jesus Angleton. James Jesus Angleton is the greatest counterintelligence agent Langley has ever had. Bill Buckley has written a book about him, and as Ledeen writes his piece he gets out the Ouija board and contacts Angleton up in heaven to get the input of what’s going on, and I missed something in this when I speculated the CIA might have done this because Clinton didn’t know, apparently. Let me just read to you from Ledeen’s column. (interruption) No, no, no, no. They did make the case. They did (interruption). Well, one more thing. “Well, maybe the CIA had a political problem. They certainly knew that Clinton wasn’t going to do anything about it, so why should they make the case? Just go ahead and implement the program,” and Angleton said, “No, no, no, no, no. They did make the case.”

That’s Risen’s real scoop and he doesn’t even know it. They had to make the case to Clinton in order to justify the operation. You couldn’t have Merlin unless you knew there was an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Remember that Risen makes a big deal about the fact that the Russian defector was carrying a technical design for a firing set for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon, and now Operation Merlin was to use a double agent to give a false set of instructions on assembling the firing set. We give the false instructions, but the point is that the program was silly because the Russians were working with the Iranians and could spot the error and could spot the subterfuge and could spot our effort, so what we were trying to do in a clandestine way was not clandestine at all. It was spotted immediately, and the end result is, is that the Iranians were able to put together the firing set necessary to trigger the reaction to cause a nuclear explosion.

Then you might say, “Okay, so Clinton ends up giving the Iranians the bomb.” That may be a bit of a stretch, but it certainly is worth considering. But still to me, the really fascinating thing about this is that the Clinton administration knew, and now I’m convinced had to sign off on this CIA operation to try to sting the Iranians into building a device that didn’t work. So they knew that they were building nuclear weapons or had their eyes on it — and the way we went about it was absolutely foolhardy. It was destined to be found out. The plan was idiotic. It had no chance of success, and in the process, the Iranians figured out the correct set, firing-set instructions, and it moved them even closer to the day that we’re even closer to now, than we were back in the year 2000.

So I wanted to pass this on because I haven’t seen excerpts of Risen’s book, at least these two stories anywhere but in the Guardian and in the Times of India, folks, great mainstream organizations that they are, and I wanted to pass this on to you. Anybody in the next two or three months, four or five months or whatever, somebody says, “You know, we got a problem in Iran. They’re developing nukes,” and you’re going to hear a chorus of catcalls from the left and Democrats in this country: More Bush lies. More Washington lies! Bush trying to change the subject. Bush trying to get the bad news of whatever they’re going to call bad news off the front pages and get people focused on nukes again. Remember, Bush lied and Cheney lied about Saddam and nukes. So when that happens, and it’s going to happen, you just remember that we’ve got evidence now from the Clinton administration and the CIA program that the Iranians having working on a nuclear weapon for at least six years, if not more.

END TRANSCRIPT

U know I have said it many times and I will continue to say it every time Howard Dean opens his mouth. I am so happy he is the DNC chair. (story above) Every time he opens his mouth means the chances are less likely a Liberal Democrat will win the White House. First John Kerry says this on Face the Nation: JOHN KERRY: “I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you’ve got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you’ve got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — of — of — historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.

The man who lied about American soldiers in Vietnam is making this jackass statement.

U know I don’t know how many liberals read my blog. But the more I read what you liberals say on your blogs, and the more I read and hear what people like Dean and Kerry say I truly don’t can’t grasp the utter lack of BASIC logic and common sense from liberals.
If you are of college age you may have some excuse for general ignorance, but anybody 30 years of age or older MUST know better.

Below are from Rush’s site but anybody who seeks the truth can easily find these.
Either you people are willfully closing your eyes to the truth just to put your types in power or you are just plain stupid.

I’ll say again the reason why I don’t like nor trust liberal politicians is because in order to win an election they MUST hide their true beliefs. They MUST deceive the voting public.
So here are the quotes again: I know you liberals have seen them, hundreds of times. I know that you “choose” to ignore them because these are your heros and mentors, and you can’t stand the thought of your heros being a bunch of lying fucks who are anti-America and who are people willing to sacrifice and undermine the well being of this nation and our troops for political gain. Throw out your Neo-Con labels and right wing nut phrases. But I thank GOD, (yes you atheist morons, GOD ALMIGHTY), I’m not a liberal Democrat.
————
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”