| |
 |
|
(JavaScript Error)
|
| Archives |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe
|
| Now you
can subscribe to this blog and receive new blogs direct to
your email! |
|
RSS/XML Syndication
| |
|
|
|
|
Video: Alternative
Views
|
|
Censured Casualties
features rare footage
of war crimes against the Iraqi people suffered during
and after the Gulf War. The footage is from former Attorney
General Ramsey
Clark in his attempt to document the injustice
of United States military actions in the region.
|
|
|
Video: Alternative
Views
|
|
Another Unknown
War
features a film on the
struggle of the indigenous people of West Papua to remain
sovereign in the face of an Indonesian invasion backed
by world capital. Footage of Noam
Chomsky on Western involvments in the region and
the relation to East Timor.
|
|
|
Doug's New Books & Related
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TV/Radio
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
|
|
|
Friday, March 31, 2006
|
Evelyn Pringle: 'Cheney and Halliburton hold title — top earners in Iraq'
good summary of Cheney-Halliburton crimes
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=25488
|
|
|
Dennis Fox: 'Impeaching Bush is just the start'
beginning a movement to impeach Bush on local levels is a good idea-- making it Impeach Bush and Cheney; this idea could catch on as did scores of local efforts to condemn Iraq war
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=25492
|
|
Sunday, March 26, 2006
|
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
rightwing ranter hired by WashPost as blogger is taken down by blogosphere through demos of his plagiarism-- unbelievable that corporate media would hire such a loser... From Salon:
"Domenech apologizes for plagiarism -- and for "obfuscation" in defense
Even as he resigned from his job as a right-wing blogger for Washingtonpost.com, Ben Domenech tried to downplay -- and, in some instances, deny entirely -- charges of serial plagiarism. He continued to blame a college newspaper editor for inserting others' words into his work. He claimed that an article he wrote for the New York Press -- one that tracked a Washington Post story almost word-for-word for the better of seven paragraphs -- was actually based on his own original reporting. He said that P.J. O'Rourke had given him permission to write an ever-so-slightly customized-for-college version of one O'Rourke's pieces -- a claim O'Rourke denies.
At the very worst, Domenech suggested, he'd been a "sloppy teenager" who hadn't done enough while a student at William and Mary to prevent others from soiling his efforts with stolen words. "The idea that the attack machine has gotten to the level where they dig back to your freshman year of college, when you’re 17, and say, 'Hey, this guy should have been thinking about the authority of what he was writing the same way that people do at the New York Times,' then, I mean, it’s idiotic," Domenech said Friday in an interview with Human Events Online. "In a lot of this stuff, it’s based on who you believe . . . if you believe the lefties are right or if you believe someone who you know and who you've worked with is right. . . . And if you look at the overwhelming bulk of everything I’ve written, you’ll find there is no question about it. The questions are about small things, a lot of them easily explainable, especially the things that come after college.”
The defense wasn't particularly persuasive, and it didn't cover all the ground Domenech needed to cover: A "sloppy teenager" is one thing, but who was that guy stealing part of a Cox News movie review and calling it his own in the National Review in 2001? That may have been the one that put the editors at Washingtonpost.com over the edge; it wasn't from Domenech's college newspaper, it couldn't have been the work of that dastardly newspaper editor -- who may well not have existed in the first place-- and it wasn't all that long ago.
It is also, apparently, the bit of evidence that has forced Domenech to admit that he was wrong. In a post late Friday night at RedState, the conservative blog he helped start before moving on to three days in Red America, Domenech is all apologies, and he starts with the National Review. The post is called "Contrition," and here's what it says: "I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this - nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement.
"I hope that nothing I've done as a teenager or in my professional life will reflect badly on the movement and principles I believe in.
"I'm deeply grateful for the love and encouragement of all those around me. And although I may not deserve such support, it makes it that much more humbling at a time like this. I'm a young man, and I hope that in time that I can earn a measure of the respect that you have given me."
It's hard not to feel Domenech's pain, at least for this brief moment. But before anybody goes singing "Kumbaya," check out how Domenech's RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky responds in an "On Behalf of RedState"post put up alongside Domenech's apology. Krempasky says Domenech will take a leave of absence to "wander in the wilderness" for a while, and he expresses high hopes for his ultimate redemption. Then he goes on a rampage against Domenech's accusers and the left more generally:
"Putting aside the charge for which Ben has been pilloried and [what] you're left with is a particular group of critics. Unlike Ben, there is far less hope for their redemption. You see -- before they settled on the attacks on his writing -- they spent three days proving that they are the lowest of the low. Charges of racism were born of poor reading comprehension. Threats of violence. Obscene commentary about his mother, his sister, his father. Loathesome, vile, and disgusting - their contempt for civil behavior surpassed only by the emptiness of their own souls. These are a people that see a man who gives up drinking in the middle of his life for the sake of his family, and respond by creating rumors of cocaine addiction. These are ignoramuses that think portraying an African-American politician as Sambo is appropriate, as long as the critics are liberal and the target is a Republican.
"Our critics can raise their glasses and toast to what they think is success -- tearing down a flawed conservative. But therein lies their greatest weakness: destroying a conservative is not to destroy conservatism. And while they put all their energy and venom into this campaign, it is worth remembering that for all the noise -- they have yet to present a real alternative to an America that rests on the foundation of freedom, free markets and family. Against that, the only answer they have is yet another personal attack."
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [08:56 EST, March 25, 2006]
Post a comment | Read comments
Domenech resigns
Well, that didn't take long.
Jim Brady, the executive editor of WashingtonPost.com, has just announced that Ben Domenech has resigned amid allegations that he repeatedly plagiarized the work of other writers.
In a statement, Brady said that he and his colleagues weren't aware of "any allegations" of plagiarism when they contracted with Domenech to write a right-wing blog for the Post's Web site. Brady said editors learned of the allegations within the past day, and that an investigation had already begun when Domenech decided to resign effective immediately.
"In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity," Brady wrote. "Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times."
Brady said that he appreciates "the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations," and that the entire episode "testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the practice of journalism. "
No word yet on whether Red America will continue in cleaner hands, but Brady said that WashingtonPost.com remains "committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [13:57 EST, March 24, 2006]
Post a comment | Read comments
The right's response to Ben Domenech
When it's all said and done -- and really, how much longer can it take? -- Ben Domenech may turn out to be the uniter that George W. Bush only promised to be. The left has been calling on the WashingtonPost.com blogger to step down or be fired for a day or so; now some voices from the right are joining in the chorus.
Michelle Malkin, the right-wing blogger and pundit whose recent book Domenech edited, says she applauded Domenech's appointment at WashingtonPost.com and wrote off the attacks on him as a liberal smear campaign -- until she saw the evidence of plagiarism that the bloggers began to unearth. "I certainly understand the impulse on the right to rally around Domenech," Malkin writes. But she says that she "can't ignore the plain evidence," and that the allegations of plagiarism "can't be dismissed as 'lies' or 'jealousy' attributed to Ben's age." When it comes to plagiarism, Malkin says, "I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors are right. He should own up to it and step down."
Conservative blogger Rick Moran, writing in the American Thinker, is also calling for Domenech to step down, saying that he "is not the kind of writer we want representing the conservative viewpoint at the Washington Post or anywhere else."
But the view on the right isn't entirely unanimous. One partisan poster, responding to Moran's argument, wonders if the whole Domenech debacle isn't "a set-up job by the WaPo to smear conservative bloggers on behalf of an outraged MSM."
Things are awfully quiet over at the National Review, where some of Domenech's seemingly plagiarized work appeared. And while Domenech's old college newspaper has begun posting this-might-have-been-lifted disclaimers on his work, Domenech's colleagues at Red State are still offering up a full-throated defense. One Red State poster argues that Domenech's articles look "suspicious" only because "permissions obtained and judgments made offline were not reflected online by an out dated and out of business campus newspaper" -- a claim that seems to be discredited, just a little, by the publication today of an editorial by that same "out of business campus newspaper." Another Red Stater rants about the lack of "decency" among liberal bloggers who have unleashed "an unremitting torrent of smears and lies and invective" against Domenech as they set out on a "fishing expedition" to sink Domenech's blog.
While it's probably true that bloggers on the left went looking for evidence to use against Domenech -- it has been known to happen -- it's a little late in the game for anyone to complain about the lack of civility in the debate, at least where Domenech is concerned. It was Domenech, after all, who, in his first post for Red America, dismissed liberals as "shrieking denizens" of the Democrats' "increasingly extreme base."
Update: The National Review's media blogger has weighed in, saying that Domenech's blame-the-college-newspaper editor approach isn't going to work. "Sorry -- it's not just the college paper," Stephen Spruiell writes. "There are other examples, including one from NRO. This is bad. Perhaps it is not fatal, but we need explanations not just from Domenech, but also from the Washington Post on how it plans to handle this."
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [12:36 EST, March 24, 2006]
Post a comment | Read comments
WashingtonPost.com blogger: Maybe it's my editor's fault
Ben Domenech, the new right-wing blogger for WashingtonPost.com, has now addressed charges that he has engaged in repeated acts of plagiarism -- at least sort of, and not in his Red America blog, which hasn't seen a new post since yesterday, when he was last heard explaining away why he called Coretta Scott King a "communist" on the day after her funeral.
In a Howard Kurtz piece in this morning's Washington Post -- not to confuse anybody, but it also appears in the separately owned WashingtonPost.com -- Domenech says he has never used anyone else's material without attribution and suggests that an editor at his college newspaper may have been responsible for adding plagiarized copy to some of the articles he wrote.
That defense might work if plagiarized text showed up only once in Domenech's work at the College of William and Mary. If, in fact, an editor is guilty of that kind of transgression -- we've never seen it happen, but anything is possible -- you call him on it, probably get him fired, and it never happens again. But Domenech's work contains the words of other writers on more than one occasion. Why would Domenech let an editor do that to him again and again? As Atrios asks, How does young Ben explain the fact that a piece he "wrote" about "real parties" seems to have been lifted, pretty much in its entirety, from a P.J. O'Rourke chapter on the same subject? Are we to believe that Domenech supplied his editor with a few words specific to the time and context in which he was "writing" -- the name of a William and Mary sorority, the names of a couple of college officials -- and that the editor filled in the rest with 700 words or so from O'Rourke's book? Are we to believe that Domenech didn't notice the editing job until now?
And if this is really all the fault of Domenech's college newspaper editor, how does that explain questions about the blogger's way with words since then? A Daily Kos poster has discovered a movie review Domenech wrote for the National Review in 2001 that bears a striking resemblance to a review someone else wrote for the Cox News Service. A blogger at Your Logo Here has found a piece Domenech wrote for the New York Press in 2001 that contains a big chunk of words from the Washington Post. (Domenech attributes a single quote to the Post, with no hint of acknowledgment that he lifted most of the seven prior paragraphs from the paper as well.) And in Salon today, Joe Conason outlines the questions surrounding Domenech's use of what seems to be a fabricated quote from Tim Russert.
Domenech may be too young to remember the Washington Post's Janet Cooke debacle -- we know, we know, WashingtonPost.com is an entirely different company -- but he was an adult when the Jayson Blair saga hit the news. Domenech wrote then -- well, at least we think he wrote it -- that Blair's "vile lies" should be given "no quarter." We would have agreed with him then, and we'd expect him to hold himself to the same standard now.
-- Tim Grieve"
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
|
|
Thursday, March 23, 2006
|
TSidney Blumenthal: 'Apocalyptic president'
Apocalyptic Bush, a dangerous dude indeed
The Smirking Chimp
|
|
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
|
Abu Ghraib Files - Salon.com News
the full horror of Abu Ghraib revealed for first time; Rumsfeld and Cheney should resign for these crimes, as should Alberto Gonzales who signed off on the policies that produced them
Abu Ghraib Files - Salon.com News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Senate Maverick Acts to Force an Issue
an Honorable Man, Russ Feingold, advances Censure motion against the Man Who Deserves Impeachment and is savaged by Repugs, supported by few of his party, and ignored by mainstream corporate media
A Senate Maverick Acts to Force an Issue
|
|
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Admission Attributed To Bush's Ex-Aide
Bushite petty criminal was obviously impressed by Big Time crime of Bush, Rove and Cheney so decided to try it out for himself....
Admission Attributed To Bush's Ex-Aide
|
|
Monday, March 13, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, March 11, 2006
|
Former Top Bush Aide Accused of Md. Thefts
a petty thief employed by Bush-Cheney gang is caught swindling, the big swindlers and crooks are still at it until the cunning eyes of Rove and Cheney and with Bush nodding on
Former Top Bush Aide Accused of Md. Thefts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 09, 2006
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
Latest buzz from Salon: Will Abramhoff sing? How bad can Iraq get?
"
The "very, very well" report, continued
We've received the latest update from the al-Qaida media committee assigned to War Room -- it goes by the code name Yahoo News -- and here's what we've got to report:
Bodies: Iraqi and U.S. military officials say that they've discovered 29 bodies -- many of them hanged -- in and around Baghdad over the course of the last day. U.S. troops found 18 of them stuffed into a minibus in the Sunni district of Amariya. Most of the others were found dumped around Baghad, the victims of gunshot wounds. One had been beheaded.
Hostages: Gunmen wearing Iraqi police uniforms stormed into the offices of a private security company in eastern Baghdad this morning, then left with as many as 50 employees as hostages.
Bombings: Explosions killed at least four people in Baghdad Wednesday. A bomb hidden under a parked car killed two Iraq police officers. Another bomb, apparently meant for a U.S. convoy in northern Baghdad, killed two boys selling gasoline instead.
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [12:23 EST, March 8, 2006]
Post a comment Read comments
Abramoff speaks, and Republicans have some explaining to do
Matt Drudge is up with what he says are excerpts from an upcoming Vanity Fair piece on Jack Abramoff. If Drudge has it right, the Republicans who have been trying to put some distance between themselves and the disgraced lobbyist may have some more explaining to do.
Tom DeLay said last month that he and Abramoff were "not close personal friends." According to Drudge, Abramoff tells Vanity Fair that he spent a lot of time with the ousted House majority leader. "We would sit and talk about the Bible. We would sit and talk about opera. We would sit and talk about golf," Abramoff says. "I mean, we talked about philosophy and politics."
Newt Gingrich has said that Republicans must clean house in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, and a spokesman tells Vanity Fair that Gingrich hasn't seen Abramoff for so long that he wouldn't recognize him on the street. According to Drudge, Abramoff says: "I have more pictures of [Newt] than I have of my wife. Here's Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. More Newt. Newt with Grover [Norquist] this time. But Newt never met me. Ollie North. Newt. Can't be Newt ... he never met me. Oh, Newt! What's he doing there? Must be a Newt look-alike ... Newt again! It's sick! I thought he never met me!"
Montana Sen. Conrad Burns says that Abramoff "never influenced me." But according to Drudge, Abramoff tells Vanity Fair: "Every appropriation we wanted [from Burns' committee], we got. Our staffs were as close as they could be. They practically used [Abramoff's restaurant] Signatures as their cafeteria. I mean, it's a little difficult for him to run from that record."
A spokesman for John McCain says that the Arizona senator "never laid eyes on" Abramoff until he appeared before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. According to Drudge, Abramoff tells Vanity Fair: "As best I can remember, when I met with him, he didn't have his eyes shut. I'm surprised that Senator McCain has joined the chorus of amnesiacs."
George W. Bush has insisted that he didn't know Abramoff well, if at all. Abramoff has said that he has met with Bush almost a dozen times, and Drudge says that he tells Vanity Fair that Bush once joked with him about his weight-lifting routine: "What are you benching, buff guy?"
As bad as the Vanity Fair piece seems to be for some naysayers, it may be only the guilt-by-association start of things. Abramoff is to be sentenced in the fraud case against him later this month; at that time, his lawyer says, he'll be "naming names" and "providing evidence of what's going on out there."
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [11:27 EST, March 8, 2006]
Post a comment Read comments
From Republican senators, an "accommodation" on spying
When it comes to a Senate investigation into George W. Bush's warrantless spying program, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe was for it before she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again.
For the White House, the fourth time was a charm. Catching Snowe on a good day, the Bush administration managed to dodge a Senate investigation of its warrantless spying program Tuesday in exchange for agreeing to give regular briefings to a few more lawmakers and maybe supporting legislation that would provide express congressional approval for spying without the warrants that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act now requires.
If that doesn't sound like much of a deal, it isn't. In a moment of unintentional candor, Pat Roberts -- the White House water carrier who serves as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- said, "I prefer accommodation over confrontation whenever possible."
As a result of Tuesday's party-line vote, the Senate Intelligence Committee won't investigate whether the president and his aides broke the law or violated the Constitution when they began spying on Americans without warrants. Instead, the committee will form a seven-member subcommittee to receive additional briefings on the program. Translation: The White House once provided semiregular briefings to the chairman and the ranking member of the committee; now it will have to provide briefings to seven members instead.
That doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice, so there must be more, right? Not much. Four members of the committee have proposed legislation that would provide specific congressional authorization for the warrantless spying, at least for a 45-day period, and the Republicans who backed the "accommodation" Tuesday would like you to think that they've forced the White House to sign off on that legislation as part of their deal. But it's clear that the White House hasn't committed to anything just yet. As Republican Sen. Mike DeWine tells Reuters, the White House has agreed to support such legislation only in "broad concept." White House Scott McClellan was heard to say Tuesday that the legislation was an "interesting" idea.
And even if the White House eventually commits to the legislation, it still would fall far short of the existing legal protections with which the president was pretending to comply. While the legislation would limit future warrantless spying to 45-day periods, there's an exception if the attorney general tells the subcommittee that there's good reason to keep spying without getting a warrant.
At least for now, that would be the same attorney general who has been less than candid about the National Security Agency program. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter said this week that Alberto Gonzales' answers to his committee's questions have been so equivocal that he may need to come back to testify a second time on the program. In the meantime, Specter's committee may provide the last remaining hope for some kind of meaningful investigation into the warrantless spying program. Specter said Tuesday that he may offer legislation cutting off funding for the program if he can't get more answers from the administration otherwise.
For the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, that sort of "confrontation" must seem both unnecessary and unseemly in the wake of the deal they've struck. "We are reasserting congressional responsibility and oversight with respect to this program," Snowe said Tuesday."
-- Tim GrieveSalon.com Politics War Room Politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 06, 2006
|
|
|
|
Saturday, March 04, 2006
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 03, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 02, 2006
|
Video Shows Bush Being Warned on Katrina
shocking evidence that Bush himself was fully warned on coming Katrina disaster and did nothing; did he want black and poor regions of New Orleans to be destroyed so his buddies could rebuild? or is he totally incompetent and uncaring and just didn't give a damn?
Video Shows Bush Being Warned on Katrina
|
|
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
|
TBob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman: 'Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White House?'
the Bush-Cheney-Rove Gang use multiple strategies to steal votes and elections, here some Ohio mischief
The Smirking Chimp
|
|
|
The Smirking Chimp - Sheila Samples: 'The world that Dick built'
evidently, information is circulating that people present during the Cheney Shooting claim Shooter Dick was drunk! not a surprise given how long he waited to make himself available for interview, that he admitted having a beer the day of the hunt and a cocktail afterwards....
The Smirking Chimp - Sheila Samples: 'The world that Dick built'
|
|
|
Salon on Bush, Iraq, etc
latest political scuttlebut from Salon=
Bush: Osama bin Laden helped me get reelected
As we were saying:
In an interview for Bill Sammon's new book, "Strategery," George W. Bush says that that last-minute videotape from Osama bin Laden may have helped get him reelected in 2004. Bush tells Sammon that there was a lot of talk within his campaign when the video of bin Laden surfaced just days before voters went to the polls.
"What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?'' Bush says. ''Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect."
Bush? He was pretty sure. "I thought it was going to help,'' he says. ''I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush.''
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [09:15 EST, March 1, 2006]
Post a comment Read comments
For Bush, a panic play -- in Afghanistan
Is it just us, or does George W. Bush's surprise side trip to Afghanistan today suggest a certain degree of panic at the White House? The president stopped in Afghanistan en route to India for lunch with President Hamid Karzai, a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the new U.S. Embassy and a pep talk for U.S. troops. At a brief news press availability with Karzai, Bush wasn't asked about Iraq or Dubai but rather Osama bin Laden -- a topic he seemed more than happy to address. More than four years after vowing to capture him "dead or alive," Bush said he's still "confident" that the al-Qaida leader will be brought to justice.
We suppose the president was just trying to bolster the Karzai government and U.S. troops faced with a sharp increase in attacks from the Taliban and others. But the trip sure reminds us of one of those Southwest Airlines commercials -- the ones in which some poor soul experiences some small humiliation at work, and an announcer asks, "Want to get away?"
Only for Bush, the humiliations aren't so small. The president's approval rating hit 34 percent in a CBS News poll this week -- a number that's the lowest of his presidency, equal to his father's lowest low and worse than anything Bill Clinton ever suffered. Americans disapprove of their president on virtually every front: They don't like the war in Iraq, they're divided on the economy, his State of the Union initiatives haven't excited much of anyone -- don't even mention the failed Social Security push from the last time around -- and the Dubai Ports World deal has caused even the president's supporters to question his national security credibility.
The Washington Post reports today that Republican politicians "who once marched in lock step behind their president on national security are increasingly willing to challenge him in an area considered his political strength." Maybe that's because they disagree with how he's handling national security -- it's Iraq, the Dubai Ports World deal, again, plus qualms, even if they don't lead to much, about the Patriot Act, warrantless spying and the like -- or maybe it's just that national security isn't such a strong suit for Bush anymore. Even when polls showed that Americans disapproved of everything else he was doing, the president carried majority support on the way he was handling the war on terrorism. (Americans seemed to separate that war from the war in Iraq, even if the president says they're the same thing.) But that's not the case anymore. For the first time ever, the CBS News poll handed Bush a sub-50 number on the way he's handling the war on terrorism. Only 43 percent of the poll's respondents said they approve of the president's performance now, down nine percentage points since January.
The Post quotes one Republican campaign consultant who says the CBS poll results are "pretty shattering." The paper talks of gallows humor among White House aides, of complaints about the "Murphy's Law" quality of events of late. In the old days, a few Bush and Cheney speeches about the terrorists who want to hit us might have set things straight again. They'll surely stick with that show -- Dick Cheney was doing it again Tuesday -- but the White House needs a flashier stage set to get the message across now. With Iraq in flames and Ground Zero a little too obvious, an afternoon in Afghanistan will have to do.
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [09:01 EST, March 1, 2006]
Post a comment Read comments
Bush on civil war: It's an Iraqi thing
So much for Colin Powell | |
