#1: Security Signs? > FOX in Sheeps' Clothing?

THREAD BEGAN: AUGUST 28th, 2004
After BOB asked if there was any evidence that the Iraqi security situation had improved since the end of major combat...

DAN
Bob, Here is a list that you so adamantly want Jay to respond to you with regards to Iraqi security improvments: 10 SIGNS OF BETTER SECURITY
1) New Iraqi army and police forces are being recruited, trained, and equipped. Some 1,200 Iraqis will be trained this year for the new Iraqi army, and in two years, 40,000 army recruits will be trained.
2) Fifty-eight of 89 Iraqi cities have hired police forces. In total, 34,000 Iraqis are employed in patrolling the streets of their country, and of these, 30,000 Iraqis are currently patrolling with coalition forces.
3) More than 8,200 tons of ammunition, thousands of AK-47s, grenades, and other weapons have been seized throughout Iraq -- much of which was stored by the Hussein regime in hospitals, schools, and mosques.
4) The CPA has hired more than 11,000 Iraqis to guard key facilities around the country.
5) Coalition forces, with information from an Iraqi, conducted operations that lead to the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein following their refusal to surrender. To date, 37 of the top 55 most wanted Iraqis have been captured or killed. With the deaths of Uday and Qusay, more and more Iraqis are freed from their fear and are volunteering their services and information.
6) Coalition forces continue to take the offensive against the remnants of the Ba'athist regime who are targeting the sites and symbols of reconstruction and stabilization successes.
7) An Iraqi Civil Defense Force will help U.S. and Coalition forces in rooting out Saddam loyalists and criminal gangs who have been attacking military forces and obstructing reconstruction efforts. Four thousand Iraqi militiamen will be trained by U.S. troops over the next eight weeks.
8) In Basra, 500 river police have been patrolling since June 19.
9) Some 148,000 U.S. service members and more than 13,000 Coalition troops from 19 countries are serving in Iraq.
10) Most of Iraq is calm and progress on the road to democracy and freedom not experienced in decades continues. Only in isolated areas are there still attacks.

BOB
Responding to Dan:
First off I’d like to thank you for doing Jay’s homework and getting me some numbers about the security situation. Some sound great and some are a bit shaky. Here are my thoughts: Of the 10 good reasons, at least half are unacceptable:
NUMBERS 1&7, are about what ‘will’ happen. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. I was asking about the progress of the last year and not the next.
NUMBER 6, seems silly. First, does anyone really think that we are still battling the remanants of the Ba’athist Party? The three week stand off in Najaf was with Shiites not Sunnis wasn’t it? We need to come to terms with the scope of this resistance and claiming to have the Ba’athis Party on their heels seems like little consilation.
NUMBER 9, sounds good, but isn’t. The Coalition is 19 Nations strong...Well yeah, down from 25 nations!
NUMBER 10, I don’t buy. “Most of Iraq is calm and progress on the road to democracy and freedom” We have problems in most every major metropolis besides the Kurdish region! These ‘few isolated regions’ are excluding what territory? The open desert?
AND:
NUMBER 3: You say 8,200 tons of ammunition have been confiscated. I say 0 tons of chemical, nuclear, or biological ammuntion have been confiscated. We didn’t invade Iraq to comfiscate grenades, did we?
As far as the others are concerned, they sound good.
NUMBER 8, for example. I don’t really know anything about the rivers in Basra. So 500 river police are patrolling since June 19th! Well, I’m not sure how many police are really sufficient for a secure river, how many were patrolling before June 19th or exactly who they are protecting and from what. It just seems like a statistic without any perspective, that pales in comparison with the broaded picture.
Aside from that, I would like to high-five Chuck for his responses.
They were direct and right on!
PS One note to Jay: Getting bad guys out of power is a good thing, I agree. But in order to make this country safer we need a consistent foreign policy with a tad more legitamacy. That means you can’t decide to go after Saddam for what he did 10 years ago (cause it suits your interests today) while continuing to support Isreal while they build their unsanctioned fences. And if you tell the world that you need to invade cause you’re sure the guy has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, then he damn well better have them. Cause if he doesn’t then we just threw 1000 dead American soldiers and 187 billion tax dollars at a ‘well, he was definately thinking about trying to get them.’ The Arab world recognizes this hypocracy.

JAY
correct me if i'm wrong. a majority of the people want us there. that is coming from your numbers. that seals the deal. what else can you say? how can you possibly argue that? 69% of the people in iraq want us there, end of story. i'm done arguing b/c you have given me my strongest argument that cannot logically be rebutted. nearly 3 to 1 ratio in my favor. good luck w/ that one. it may take a while, but this is the best thing for iraq, all the surrounding countries, and the world for that matter. in a few years (or maybe even 10 years) maybe you'll understand what i mean. people cannot live in an oppressive dictatorship. but it's their culture.... blah blah blah. yeah, and our culture used to invlove slavery. that country was going to shit. look at all the things saddam has done (to his people, his economy, kuwait). just look at the numbers concerning iraq's economy since saddam and get back to me.
bob, i'm not responding to this b/c you side step all my questions and put words in my mouth that i never stated. actually, i have to. example, "Jay, why are you so determined to disagree with me on this? Why do you think the security situation HAS improved?" I never said it has improved yet. you are right on this. of course it's going to get worse before it gets better. one day kids like us in iraq will be able to have these debates criticising government w/out getting murdered. example #2: "Well, since our last email the Olympic Committee has filed a law-suit against the Bush Administration to force them to remove the ads from the airwave. The Olympic Committee is the body that oversees all the participants, and they sure didn’t like ‘em." What the fuck does that have to do w/ the thoughts and feelings of the people, including women, of iraq and afghanistan. i don't agree w/ that ad, but it doesn't change the fact that these countries are on their way to liberation. and if you disagree, when was the last time an afghani women competed in the olympics? so you are saying beacause it has been a decade since saddam invaded kuwait then it is ok. no prob. and he isn't sitting quietly. why did the UN palce sanctions on iraq? why wouldn't he let people in? looks fishy huh?

CHUCK
Sorry I have not had much more input in all this back and forth, but I have been busy. Here is the bottom line: ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS. IRAQ IS A DISASTER! US SOLIDERS ARE DYING EVERYDAY (and no one is talking about it)Maybe it is getting marginally better, but that's like getting a 30% on a test, and receiving an F.....then you get a 55%, also an F.....then you say "we're doing better". WHAT A JOKE. There are 20,000 dead Iraqi's. I am sure that a majority of Iraqi's lost a family member or friend, and therefore will live the rest blaming the US. So we have grown the hate in that country. We have 1000 dead Americans. We have over 6000 wounded americans (many losing limbs or vision, etc). AND FOR WHAT? No WMD. No ties to 9/11. BUT they didnt like us and would hurt us if they could. If that is the standard for war, then we better all sign up for the military because we have a lot of nations to go to war with. So if that's the standard, Viscione, Jay, and everyone else that things that is the standard for war (a country that would hurt us if they could) then you guys better sign up to fight the war. Sign up. Maybe your courage and conviction will inspire me, and I'll sign up, too. Because we have a lot of nations to attack. N Korea, Iran, Syria....well all of the middle east.....then I bet all of Africa would want a peice if they could....and probably the impoverished and exploited South/Central American nations would like to beat us up, too. So, you preemptive war guys will be busy. If you need a hand, call me from the front line. (and if you dont want to fight the war, I am sure you wont mind a tax increase to pay for all this...because we know that all Bush supporters believe in making sacrafices in times of war)

JAY
another thing. i'm confused. liberals are so into speaking up, protesting, shit like that. solutions are never suggested. just bitching on how things are wrong and just wait a little longer. how much time did we give saddam before we went in. by that time he could have hidden WMDs up his mammas cutchie (had to throw something immature in, ha ha). don't you want to give these people an opportunity to speak up, protest, shit like that. or you want that right all to yourselves?
didn't kerry vote to go in w/out the go ahead from the un? bush isn't the greatest, but i don't like this guy. seems like he is jumping around on issues just to please voters.

CHUCK
Solutions are never suggested. Well that is inaccurate. The solution is to get a new face on the war by reaching out to other nations. You do this by opening up construction contracts to other nations, and just allowing american companies, such as Halliburton to profit. You also apologize for blatantly violating many levels of internation law. You embrace the world community, not flick them off. And, here is the thing, Bush cant do any of this because he has burned too many bridges. A regime change at home is the best way to stabalize Iraq. by that time he could have hidden WMDs up his mammas cutchieTHERE WERE NO WEAPONS!!!!!! Quit infesting peoples minds with the idea that he had any. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS!!!!!!
didn't kerry vote to go in w/out the go ahead from the un?Sure, because he thought there was a real threat, and thought authority to declare war was the best way to keep america safe. Kerry does not believe the UN has the last say, but that it should be considered. Kerry believed: 1) show sadaam we mean business, 2) allow the president to execute war as a last resort. Well, (1) Worked. Sadaam opened up to inspectors under pressure, after the authorization. BUT (2) didnt happen. Bush clearly rushed to war. Iraq was cooperating with inspectors more then ever. There was no attempt to gather a coalition. Bush did not go as last resort, and that is what Kerry voted for.
Alright, I'm done.

BEN
All, I have enjoyed reading your back and forths. I have been too busy with my website and newsletter as well as school and work and playing golf to respond so far - but I have read all of the emails. I think that it is good we are all discussing these important issues - I remember back in 2000 I couldnt find anyone to have an in-depth conversation with about the election. I just wanted to add a few things:
Iraq is not going as well as some of you claim, and not as bad as others of you say. It has been worse than Bush and Co. ever thought it would be - no doubt. They did a poor job planning for the aftermath of the war. On the other hand, many prewar predictions by the left did not turn out to be accurate either. Both sides have things they can point to as evidence. I have always maintianed that we would know in 20 years of the decsion to go in was right. If the Middle East fundamentally changes, Bush was right. If not, it was a disaterous descsion. I said this from day 1.
1. Solutions are never suggested
Kerry has suggested a solution - he will get foreign leaders (some unnamed) involved. This is pure fantasy. These guys are not going to help out a cause that is going so poorly (as many of you suggest). Rhetoric aside, Bush did try to get more countries to assist in Iraq - they were simply unwilling. A Kerry win in Nov. is not going to get France, Russia, or Germany to send troops. Although maybe France, Kerry does speak French.
2. WMDS
Everyone, including the UN and the three previosuly mentioned countries were convinced he had them, not just Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. I still think he did - but I have no explanation as to what happened to them. I still think that maybe some were shipped to Syria - though of course I have no evidence. There is no doubt he had them at some point - he used them. Why would Saddam constantly kick out and decieve inspectors? It doesnt make sense if he didnt have them. He had to know Bush was serious about coming in - if he had no weapons why wouldnt he let inspectors back in for full access? I dont know the answer - it is definetly a mystery. Here is my question to everyone - If Bush knew there was no WMD - why would he risk it all going into Iraq , knowing that his lies would be exposed headed into the election? It doesnt make sense at any level.
3. didn't kerry vote to go in w/out the go ahead from the un?
I dont know. No one really knows what Kerry thinks on this. It seems like he voted for the war when it was politically popular, and then turned against it in order to make a move on Howard Dean. If Kerry hadnt, he probably wouldnt be the nominee now. His voting against the $87 billion - in my estimation - will be what does him in if he indeed loses, which is looking more probable with every passing day. He made a HUGE blunder without even realizing it when he said "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." That is a tough thing to explain to the avergae voter - and it will come up in the debates - you can be damn sure of it.
I heard a great analogy this week - It is halftime of the Super Bowl, and Bush is up by an extra point, and he gets the ball to start the 2nd Half. Now he has to capatilize on the miserable last two weeks of Kerry with his speech. Most recent state polls are going the way of Bush, but there is a long way to go. Kerry has run a dreadful campaign, and I dont know if is because he is a dreadful candidate (which he is) or people are coming home to Bush. Dont get me wrong, if i hated Bush or was a Democrat, I would be defending Kerry, too and vote for him. But it has to be getting harder every day.
Thats all - Ive enjoyed reading your emails. And in a shamless plug - check out my website - http://keelerreport.blogspot.com/

KYLE
Gents,
1. Even though Iraq is not going well, discussion of anything pertaining to National Security benefits Bush. (see this weeks Republican National Convention)
2. Kerry has lost ground in the polls because all he has done since the swift boat ads have come out is respond to attacks. (like fellow liberals in this email forum)
3. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11.
4. The people (Taliban) who knocked over the twin towers and killed 3,000 Americans are still (yesterday) operating in Afghanistan and bombing US targets.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130489,00.html
5. Unless the focus of the election becomes about Bush's domestic performance, we're looking at 4 more years.
Read the KeelerReport.blogspot.com and then comment on ChiefSource.blogspot.com

ZELIN
Did anyone catch the speeches last night at the Republican Convention? Assuming you all (Jay, Keeler, Viscione) were glued to the TV with boners, I find it hard to understand why the primary issue appeared to be 9/11. It appeared that most speeches/obituaries didn't even focus on Bush, but were used to remember what happened on that fateful day. Now, don't get me wrong, it was a horrible event that we all will never forget, but the Republican campaign has been stressing that this convention is about the future, moving forward, getting America on the right track. So, isn't that what the speakers should be focusing on? Isn't that what we should be hearing about? Second, I really get tired of it when speakers profess that America is the greatest nation in the world. Even if we are the most powerful (economically, militarily, sexually) I feel that it is completely arrogant to state such ideas on national/world television. Imagine how you would all feel, better yet, Americans in the South, if Britain or France started proclaiming that they are the greatest nation in the world and all other nations are jealous of our freedom and prosperity. Call me crazy, but I think that might piss some hillbillies off. Allright, that is it for now. More later. I have been reading all of your emails and it has been excellent bathroom material.

BOB
I think that Kyle's comment last email was one of the most important things said in this exchange. He said: "The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11." This can't be stressed enough.

JAY
everyone is so sure about everything at this point. just wait. i can't wait until the trial is over. you know, saddam's trial

ZELIN
That won't be over for years, Jay. Saddam is going to continue claiming that he does not recognize the court (similar to Milosevic) and delay the process as long as he can. Get back to me in 5 years with the verdict.

DAN
FUCK Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)!!! Who does this guy think he is? The slander he spoke of is almost as disgusting as the comb-over he is sporting. He should be embarrassed of such a disgraceful presence at the RNC. This asshole is the only person I have gotten upset with during this entire presidential race. Never, will I give him the benefit of the doubt for such a poor showing Tuesday night on television (I forget which cable news channel). Thank you Congressman Rengal for showing the entire world the kind of bastard you truely are!
Just a little venting, Viscione
PSS- A Google search will confirm that I am not the only one who thinks this guy is a hand job. Take a look at his stances and opinions for yourselves....agree or disagree?

JAY
well, in 5 years i'll be saying hahaha

CHUCK
calm it down. Rangel is good people. and he represents the district of Madison Square Garden. plus, Michael Moore was there, which would be much more upsetting if i were you....but since i'm not, i think moore being there is the greatest thing ever

BOB
Hey all,
This is really just a question:
Do you think that the U.S. intervention in Afganistan has been a success or a failure?
PS Jay, your emails are getting shorter and incoherent. How will Saddam's trial change anything? What did you mean?

JAY
well, if you responded COMPLETELY to my other e-mails I might write more. i feel that i'm wasting my time. you respond to only what you want, sometimes putting weird spins on it. you failed to respond to the most important things i had to say. i don't think you answered one question i asked. there are too many to list. hopefully you saved my e-mails so you can resend them and i will highlight what i'm talking about. if not, i will try to remember all the interesting questions i had for you. what do you mean incoherent? if you can't understand, i will attempt to articulate better. others seem to understand just fine. i think we'll learn much about the situation in iraq during the trial. i could be wrong, but at least i admit it. 2/3 want us there. anyone want to respond to that. i didn't think so, peace

ZELIN
That's it, Viscione is racist. I am going to start telling everyone.

BOB
WOW WOW WOW
I can't believe what I saw last night!
Arnold calling Democrats 'Girly Men' then saying he wants to TERMINATE terrorism!?! Is this a joke? Is this a Saturday Night Live skit come to life?
The Governator spent alot of time pointing-out that most everything good that has happened in the past century was somehow thanks to America, more specifically Republicans, more specifically George W. Then he put George W and Abraham Lincoln in the same boat!!!
(Wasn't Lincoln a progressive thinker...didn't he decide to end the good-old-fashion tradition of putting blacks in chains against the wishes of rich, white folks living in...say Texas? I'm sure George W would have right there along side Lincoln, fighting for the black man!)
I was too shocked to be disgusted!
Then the twins! Who wrote that segment? It sounded like they did...and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Then we had the video-feed of Bush just hangin out at a good-old fashion baseball game with good old American folks in the back ground. What a feel good night! But if I could make a suggestion....they needed more kittens. Kittens are warm and cuddly!
I can't wait until Bush's big night. I hope he rides in on a dolphin that's painted red-white-and-blue. And then fireworks shoot out of Arnold's ass, those kind of fireworks that make the shape of hearts and American flags. By the way, Arnold bought a Hummer in 12 different colors, cause he really really likes them...the man spends $10,000 dollars on a box of his favorite cigars. Do you really believe that anyone on this planet who throws money around like that gives a rats ass about poor folks, about the middle class, about the working class.
Fuck no!
PS Jay I am baffled. I responded to your emails, point-by-point. In my emails I ended each one with a very pointed question: "Why do you think the security situation in Iraq has improved?". After 3 emails in which you didn't respond DAN finally did on your behalf. And that weird spin that you refer to is called 'facts.'
Once again I will respond to your question about 2/3 of the Iraqi people wanting us there. My original point was that this idea of a 'handful of Ba'athist party loyalists' disrupting reconstruciton seems naive.
If that BBC survey is anywhere near true than we have 7 million Iraqis that are resorting to or aiding or condoning or supporting violence against U.S. troops. This is a much bigger problem all of the sudden.
Jay, you have 'dated' alot of women...yes? Imagine for a moment, If 1/3 of these women said that they'd like to see you die.....would you say: "But 2/3 of the girls that I 'dated' DONT want to see me die! So that just proves that the overwhelming majority are glad that they 'dated' me!"
It doesn't sound good to me.

JAY
I missed most of both the republican and democratic conventions, but have been catching up by watching MSNBC, CNN, and FOX news. Based on what the commentators discussed, it appears that the Terminator's speech was fairly good. Good enough to boost Bush in the polls. I was extremely skeptical about the Terminator and I failed to hear his speech, but if all the news shows (Mostly watched MSNBC last night) are praiseing what he said it couldn't have been that bad. I kept on hearing the reoccuring theme of the democratic party "wasting precious air time discussing the swift boat issue." it seems they forgot to address the important issues. If i'm wrong, someone correct me. Bob, your "girlfriend" analogy is interesting, but it does not quite fit. Would you rather have it 1/3 want me alive, and 2/3 want me dead? That's the way I read it. Anyway, it's not about death, it's about help. 2/3 want our help. Give me another analogy. They're somewhat amusing.
I obtained the following quotes from these Iraqi's straight from the BBC News UK Edition. I don't want to hear that it is biased b/c it is the source you guys would always bitch at me to follow up on. After their quotes I added my own comments in blue. Feel free to respond to my comments BOB.
(1) "The situation is in the hand of God and we respect our new leaders. May god keep Bush and Allawi, because Bush threw out Saddam and Allawi will give us safety and security. I think we should try and execute Saddam. He took our sons! He took my two sons from their colleges 25 years ago. I never heard from them again."
An iraqi stating "May god keep bush." Someone over there wants us (1 of the 2/3 of iraqis).
(2) "It is a good thing for Iraqis to be ruled by Iraqis. The new government are our sons and they know our history and our suffering for the past 35 years. I have some fears because there are many terrorists in the country. We need the Iraqi authorities to capture all the terrorists. "The Iraqi people deserve security, stability, affordable housing and good salaries. Even if Saddam has a trial, he is finished!"
An iraqi stating that there are many terrorist in iraq. Does that mean Saddam was harboring terrorists (One of the reasons we went over there). Is she more credible than some kids from the midwest?
(3) "I don't know if the new government is good or bad. We need security, electricity, water and a stable society. "I expect that in the next few days there will be many explosions. We suffered under Saddam too much. I wish he would die. Killing him will quiet his followers."
Here you go. She is unsure whether it's good or bad, yet you are so sure Bush and his administration is the devil. Just some food for thought.
(4) "It's a good first step for the Iraqi people and a great step to peace and security in all Iraq. The first thing is to create security in Iraq, to force people to go to their jobs, get rid of all the terrorists, and close all the doors against them. I hope to overcome my fears now that we have a new government. We should put Saddam on trial, because the trial would let people discover how Saddam and his followers deceived them."
Another Iraqi mentioning terrorists in Iraq. Seems like this guy is pretty happy w/ the change.
(5) "I was surprised the transfer of sovereignty happened early. I hope for the safety and stability of this country. Now the authority is in the hand of the Iraqis, we will destroy all the cells of terrorism. When I woke this morning I saw the Americans no longer control me and that makes me feel better. Saddam should be kept alive. We don't want him to be comfortable. If he is dead, he will not feel the anger of the Iraqi people."
It's unnecessary to comment here.
(6) "It's not a clear picture yet. The new government has good qualifications and we hope they can rebuild things. All sides of life were destroyed in this country."
This guy is more optimistic than some United Statians (b/c were not really americans: that's for you Zelin) and he actually lives in Iraq.

Here are the 7 preliminary charges Saddam faces. More will follow later. Again, I got this info from the BBC News. Maybe we should have let him do more? I don't know. These acts kind of mirror Hitler. I got it! Lets wait until he kills 6 million people, then we'll go in.
1)Anfal 'ethnic cleansing' campaign against Kurds, 1988
Between February and September 1988 Saddam Hussein ordered a massive displacement operation, known as the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign, against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. Hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed to the ground. Chemical weapons were also used.
2)Gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988
In August 1988, during the Anfal campaign, Iraqi forces attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with bombs containing a mixture of mustard and nerve gases. An estimated 5,000 civilians, including women, children and babies, were killed in a single day.
3)Invasion of Kuwait, 1990
In August 1990 Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi troops into Kuwait, which led to the Gulf War in January 1991. Iraqi soldiers are alleged to have tortured and summarily executed prisoners and to have looted Kuwait City and taken hundreds of Kuwaiti captives back to Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers also set light to more than 700 oil wells and opened pipelines to let oil pour into the Gulf and other water sources.
4)Crushing the Kurdish and Shia rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War
After the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein took revenge on the northern Kurds and Shia Muslims in southern Iraq, who rose up against the regime. The Iraqi army suppressed the uprisings using massive military force and drained the southern marsh lands which had sustained a way of life dating back around 5,000 years. Their habitat destroyed, many of the indigenous Arabs fled to surrounding countries.
5)Killing political activists over 30 years
Evidence has emerged of 270 mass graves across Iraq which are believed to hold the remains of possibly tens of thousands of people. The UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the Iraqi regime in 2001 for "widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences".
6)Massacre of members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983
In July 1983, Iraqi security forces arrested about 8,000 male members of the Barzani clan in the northern province of Arbil. They were transported to southern Iraq and have not been heard of since.
7)Killing of religious leaders in 1974
In July 1974, the Iraqi regime arrested dozens of Shia religious leaders, and executed five of them.

CHUCK
Bob, you missed another thing about Tuesday that should have made you sick. Compassion at its best: The Black Man....Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. This guy stated "we have come even further since a majority of Republicans in the United States Senate fought off the segregationist Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Technically this is true. So what we are supposed to know is that they are the party of the african-american voter. The democrats must be really racist. Here is what Lt. Gov. Token/Steele was missing: 1. the segregationist democrats quickly switched to the republican party when it came to enforcing the act. Guess what, Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond were segregationist democrats. So they must be pretty bad....but they actually represent the republican party (well, the living guy does)2. Rather shortly after the party swapping, the republicans started pandering to segregationists by using code words such as 'states rights' in order to allow segregation. I tried to do a litte research to make my point stronger, but i stilll think one thing is clear: it is insane that this token black guy would come up there and act like the republican party is friend to the black-american. the democrats might not do enough, but there is no comparison. and then to take credit for black-americans progress is insane.
6 happy iraqis quotes12,000 dead iraqi civilians6000 dead iraqi soliders 1000 dead american soliders6000 wounded american soliders1 member of congress with family in iraq0 WMD0 imminent threat
maybe 2/3 of iraqi's want us to stabalize things. i agree. but there is no way I can see the war being worth the cost in money ($200 billion), lives (over 20,000), and global relations.
honestly, does anyone think preemptive war is a good idea? what a dangerous precedent.

JAY
you're really going to love this response. "you can't put a price on human life. it's worth all the money in the world to free oppressed people." visualize me saying that in an extremely dramatic way w/ a little tear dropping from my eye lash. i'm so sensitive. you have a point, but so do I. I truly believe I'm right, but it may take years to find out.

I have to add a little to my original, cheesy response. It is interesting how you responded to my one e-mail, but forgot about my other e-mail (Saddam's charges). Why don't you figure all the deaths caused by Saddam in your numbers. It only seems fair. And it's not only 6 iraqis, an overwhelming majority feel the same way (2/3; which you agree to in your response). How do you react to the fact that an overwhelming majority of the people want us there? And don't respond I don't know if it's worth it. Here is a little fun fact for you. It states how much the big powerful devil (the U.S.) spends on Official developement assistance (form of foreign aid). In 2003 the U.S. spent nearly 16 billion in developement assistance for foreign govs. The country behind us is Japan at 8 billion. Is it worth it? This table shows who.... just read the title. Why should we give any money? Is it really worth it? Does any other country spend nearly as much as the U.S.? Why don't you criticize that if you worried about $?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/images/bg1186tab1.gif

BOB
Jay...I read your emails and....I agree!!!
So we can stop arguing these two points:
(1) Many, many Iraqis want us in Iraq
(2) Saddam is a bad leader and the world is better off without him.
Despite agreeing with you on both points, I still don't support this preemptive invasion. Maybe I could be more supportive if:
(1) The president had said from the beginning that liberating the Iraqis was the primary reason for doing this (not WMD scare-tactics)…
(2) The president hadn't side-stepped a UN vote sanctioning the invasion…
(3) The president hadn't alienated allies by blocking France and others from making competitive bids for reconstruction…
(4) We had the support of international organizations like the Red Cross and Amnesty international, both of which have called this occupation a travesty…
(5) We hadn't broken the Geneva Convention by holding Iraqis without notifying the Red Cross, with the Abu-Grae Prison abuse and the legal black hole at Guantanamo. (Especially, after criticizing Saddam for his gross human rights violations)
(6) We didn't continue to support Israel (as Jay’s last email demonstrated: $3,000,000,000 worth of support. More than any other country, I believe) as they continue to break UN regulations (at the same time that we are calling on the world to hold Saddam accountable for similar violations)
So you can stop arguing that Saddam was a bad guy and that the world is better off without him. Or that many, many Iraqis want us in Iraq.
I know. I agree.
The question isn’t:
Do the majority of Iraqis want us in Iraq or Is Saddam a bad guy?
The question is:
Is America safer? Or have we been so dishonest and stubborn and ruthless and hypocritical in our pursuit of this dictator that we’ve lost the respect of our allies, thrown fuel on the fire of Muslim fundamentalism, and taken our eye off the REAL terrorist threat?

JAY
I copied your response and replied where appropriate.
Jay...I read your emails and....I agree!!!
So we can stop arguing these two points:
(1) Many, many Iraqis want us in Iraq. Thank you, but I would prefer if you said a vast majority. This is one of the main points that you guys keep shrugging off.
(2) Saddam is a bad leader and the world is better off without him. Thank you
Despite agreeing with you on both points, I still don't support this preemptive invasion. Maybe I could be more supportive if: -You can call it a preemptive invasion, but the UN, for many years, gave hime numerous opportunities to comply and Saddam failed. The UN then placed sanctions on Iraq for many years. We know he had WMD's b/c he used them against his own people. When we questioned what he had after 9/11 he failed to let inspectors in. We waited. We gave him time. How much more time would have been necessary? We gave him enough time to hide or get rid of what he had (speculation). Is it necessary to wait until the weapons kill millions? Would you have called it a preemtive strike if we went in and prevented Hitler from killing millions of jews?
(1) The president had said from the beginning that liberating the Iraqis was the primary reason for doing this (not WMD scare-tactics)… Yes, he said that relying on intelligence, which Kerry agreed with. You must act on the intelligence you receive. We had information prior to 9/11 and failed to implement it in our national security. You can't say he lied b/c you don't know. Areyou disagreeing w/ the fact that he relied on intelligence. The intelligence could have been wrong. I don't believe that everything is set in stone. Things still might turn up. Read General Franks book. Why would scientists be burying documentation relating to WMD's in their gardens and yards? Looks suspicious.
(2) The president hadn't side-stepped a UN vote sanctioning the invasion… Look at the statistics of how productive the UN really is and get back to me on that one. The UN needs some reorganization.
(3) The president hadn't alienated allies by blocking France and others from making competitive bids for reconstruction… You know my stance on this point. Look at all the ties between Iraq, France, and Russia concernig oil contracts and the bllions of dollars at risk. You have to agree that France and Russia would lose much with the war. Looks like a conflict of interest. If they are not going to help w/ the invasion, why should they benefit? You can't get the cake and eat it too (i never understood that saying). Bids should go to the countries that aided. Give them something back for their support.
(4) We had the support of international organizations like the Red Cross and Amnesty international, both of which have called this occupation a travesty… Yes, they would call war a travesty. It's the fucking red cross and amnesty, what the fuck do you think they would say? I shouldn't have even responded to this one (admit it).
(5) We hadn't broken the Geneva Convention by holding Iraqis without notifying the Red Cross, with the Abu-Grae Prison abuse and the legal black hole at Guantanamo. (Especially, after criticizing Saddam for his gross human rights violations) Are you really comparing those "inhumane" acts with those of Saddam. I'm not well informed on this issue, but I don't believe you can compare POW's w/ your own countrymen. It's still horrible. I don't know much here so inform me.
(6) We didn't continue to support Israel (as Jay’s last email demonstrated: $3,000,000,000 worth of support. More than any other country, I believe) as they continue to break UN regulations (at the same time that we are calling on the world to hold Saddam accountable for similar violations)Israel isn't oppressing it's people or killing them for that matter. Don't get off the subject. Are you seriously criticising our government for aiding another country? A liberal criticising foreign aid. I thought I'd never hear that. And you are helping me w/ my previous point. In this discussion alone we have mentioned three countries that have broken UN regulations and what has the UN done?
So you can stop arguing that Saddam was a bad guy and that the world is better off without him. Or that many, many Iraqis want us in Iraq.
I know. I agree.
The question isn’t:
Do the majority of Iraqis want us in Iraq or Is Saddam a bad guy?
The question is:
Is America safer? Or have we been so dishonest and stubborn and ruthless and hypocritical in our pursuit of this dictator that we’ve lost the respect of our allies, thrown fuel on the fire of Muslim fundamentalism, and taken our eye off the REAL terrorist threat? What is the real terrorist threat? Muslim fundamentalism was already burning quite strong. Look what happened. Has anything happened since in our country (since you are emphasizing our country)? Has Bush implemented better homeland security than what was in place before? If I use your type of thinking then the U.S. is safer b/c nothing has happened in our country since 9/11 and it's much harder for terrorists to act in our country since 9/11 (You say Saddam wasn't a threat b/c he has been "sitting idle for a decade" whatever that meant). Don't preemptively attack our national security..... blah blah blah. And we've had allies throughout this.
Our arguments are starting to get old. Same things are argued over and over. I think we're the stubborn ones. Remember, when you come back don't think you can bring this shit up when we're out. It's doesn't mix well w/ alcohol and I'd rather talk about punany byznyziatches.

CHUCK
I am going to give a response, to the 2/3 want us there claim. I dont know the specific poll you are referring to, but I am assuming it says: 2/3 of iraqis want to keep the US in iraq.
Well, that does not mean they like the US or agree with the war. It just means they want us there. If Maney trashes my house, I am going to want him to stay at my house until he cleans up and gets things back to normal. So if the US trashed Iraq, then of course most would want us there to clean up and try to create some stability.
But did they want us? I dont think 2/3's wanted the war. Some did. But not 2/3. Its about 1/2. Which is still pretty good, but its not a strong majority (if its a majority at all). Here is a link: [Iraq Anniversary Poll]
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica
(its kind of old, and i wonder if discontent is growing or shrinking)
That said, 1/2 of a country wants us there. Well, i bet there are dozens of countrys that would like to be liberated by a dictator. And i bet many oppressed countries would support invasion by more then a coin flip.
Okay, so now: 50% want us there. It costs $200 Billion and 20,000 lives. If you think its worth it great, but i just will never see it.
Jay, in regards to your corny quote. There is some truth to it. But that is what makes what has gone on in the abu ghraib prison so indefensible. we are there to set an example of freedom, and we sick dogs on them and cover them in shit. (and that is the nice stuff).
So lets say you agree with iraq. Bush should still be fired, because he has not held anyone accountable for abu ghraib. that is the worst thing about this war (in addition to the looting at the beginning).....and bush has done nothing.
There are supposedly pics of children being sexually abused, and adults being raped. we wont get to see it, but its there. HOW CAN BUSH DO NOTHING?

DAN
I would like to rebut Hewitt's brash comments on Governor Schwarzenegger's speech. Unfortunately, I am not able to do so at the moment...I'll do it sometime over the weekend.

BOB
Aboard The USS Abraham Lincoln, (May 1, 2003) Bush said, “We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat and our shared responsibility to meet it.” Then in Feb, according to the White house: The Coalition of the Willing grew to 49 countries! According to Bush’s State of the Union: 34 sent troops! It sounded like ‘shared responsibility’ to me. But what has happened since? Well, the Coalition has since suffered 1126 casualties: ---999 Americans have died. ---65 British have died. ---40 Italian or Spanish or Polish have died. (These 5 countries account for 1105 deaths. More than 98% of casualties) There are 44 other ‘Official Coalition Members’ that have suffered a combined total loss of 21 troops…that’s 0.47 of a dead soldier from each nation! Well, it makes sense, considering that only 8 Nations sent more than 500 troops in the first place! (Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia and Romania) As the U.S. death toll hits 1000; I hope we can all finally come to terms with the fact that our broad coalition was grossly exaggerated. There weren’t 49 nations sharing responsibility…not even 34 nations…but 9 nations! Maybe the 49 Coalition members did ‘understand the threat and our shared responsibility to meet it’…But the grief of a fallen soldier’s family has been exclusively ours nearly every time.

JAY
Here are the stats that I found. Bob, I specifically remember a conversation that we had where I asked you, why is the U.S. held to such high expectations? Why are we always expected to step in and help all the time? I stated that other countries shoud step it up. Why should we carry the entire load. You answered by stating, "We have the most powerful military with the most influence in the world. It is our duty." It went something like that. Responding to your comment about shared responsibility, has there ever been "shared responsibility"? Doesn't it seem like the U.S. carries an extremely larger percent of the burden stemming from U.N. issues? I expect some feedback here, but I think the U.N. relies on us quite often. So, I think it's obvious that the U.S would send an extremely larger number of troops. "We have the most powerful and most ifluential military in the world." And other countries don't have the resources, but agree with our actions. found at http://www.worldhistory.com/ Nature of support The criteria for inclusion in the coalition, as defined by the White House, are very broad, including mere political support.
Countries with Troops in Iraq
United States - 135,000 troops, expansion planned.
United Kingdom - 8,700 troops
Italy - 2,950 troops
Poland - 2,500 troops
Ukraine - 1,650 troops in Kut, currently not leaving their base, but intend to stay in Iraq
Spain - 1,300 troops. Prime minister in waiting José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero intends to pull out of Iraq after taking office.
Romania - 700 troops
Netherlands - 850 troops
Australia - 850 troops. Under discussion in view of the upcoming elections in Australia.
Japan - 600 troops in Iraq, currently not leaving their base, but intend to stay in Iraq. However, this discussion is still ongoing within Japan. See Deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq.
Bulgaria - 480 troops, working with the Polish forces near Kerbala
Thailand - 460 troops
Denmark - 500 troops, (submarine & warship, and a medical team)
South Korea - 400 non-combat troops (Sending 3,000 combat troops planned, but still under discussion)
Honduras - 370 troops
El Salvador - 360 troops
Hungary - 300 troops
Dominican Republic - 300 troops
Nicaragua - 230 troops
Mongolia - 180 troops
Azerbaijan - 151 troops
Norway - 150 troops
Latvia - 121 troops
Portugal - 128 troops
Lithuania - 105 troops
Slovakia - 105 troops
Philippines - 96 troops
Czech Republic - 80 troops
Albania - 70 troops
Georgia - 70 troops
New Zealand - 60 army engineers, intended pull out in September.
Estonia - 55 troops
Kazakhstan - 27 troops working with the Ukrainian troops in Kut, currently not leaving their base, withdrawal considered
Macedonia - 28 troops
Moldova - 24 troops In addition to regular troops there are more than 15,000 Private military contractors in Iraq, as for example Blackwater USA and others.
Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Countries that formerly had Troops in Iraq
Singapore - 200 personnel returned recently, no further comitment.
Political support only
Afghanistan
Colombia
Iceland (has no military)
Marshall Islands Micronesia (has no military)
Palau (has no military)
Philippines
Rwanda
Uganda
Uzbekistan

BEN
bob, you seem to be all about coaltions ( i am not against them) if we would have had the same coalition going into afghnistan what would be your response. is it the coalition or lack therof that upsets you, or the war,or both? IMHO we needed to go itno Afghniatsan regardless if we had any sort of support from other countries

JAY
I read an interesting artice written by Dr. Nile Gardiner, who is an expert on U.S.-British relations, the War on Terror, post-war iraq, British foreign policy, european union foreign policy, and the united nations. Dr. Gardiner has advised the Executive Branch of the United States Government on a range of key issues, from the role of international allies in post-war Iraq to U.S.-British leadership in the war on terror. Gardiner was Foreign Policy Researcher for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He has a broad range of international experience and has lived in four continents: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America. The article is titled "The Myth of U.S. Isolation: Why America Is Not Alone in the War on Terror." If you want to read the entire article you can find it at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm558.cfm I decided to simply cut and paste the points that counter Bob. Some stuff is in bold and some even in bold and enlaerged (you know what that means). The United States retains the political support of many key allies, from Tokyo to Warsaw. In fighting the war on terror, the United States has assembled one of the greatest international coalitions the world has seen. Managing such a huge global coalition is of course an extremely difficult task. It requires skillful leadership, and its strength is limited by a lack of military capability, technology, and manpower on the part of coalition members. By any historical measure, the U.S.-led coalition is an extraordinarily successful alliance. The United States has spearheaded a huge international effort to reconstruct Iraq and negotiate forgiveness of the country’s massive debts. The decision to go to war against Iraq was undertaken only after years of tortuous negotiation at the UN Security Council and no less than 17 UN resolutions. The opposition of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq should not be perceived as representative of Europe as a whole—indeed, a majority of European governments backed the U.S. decision to liberate the Iraqi people. There is plenty of good stuff that I left out, but I'm sure many of you didn't even make it to this sentence.

DAN
Anyone in coalition to take out these fucking assholes is someone I am glad to have on my side...whether 1 person or 1 millilon!!!

BOB
So some people out there seem to be wondering…what exactly was Bob’s point in the last email…well, let me be clearer: Bush said that we had a broad international Coalition that understood its shared responsibility in the war on terrorism. This wasn’t the case. And let’s not confuse the argument…. Has the U.S. always carried the bulk of the burden for the UN?...Probably, I don’t know. Does the U.S. have a moral obligation to help everybody?...Maybe, I don’t know. Did Bush tell the American people that a Coalition of 49 countries had been established that understood their shared responsibility in liberating Iraq?...Yes. Has this happened?...No. And about Dr. Nile Gardiner (an article which I DID read all the way to the bottom). You mentioned that, “he has a broad range of international experience and has lived in four continents: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America.” Well so have I!! So I guess that makes me the Foreign Policy Specialist in our round table (and Zelin too, if he ever chimes in). Well Gardiner says: “(the Coalition’s) strength is limited by a lack of military capability, technology, and manpower on the part of coalition members.” We have heard this argument before: the U.S. has a big military and the other nations simply don’t have the resources to deploy like we do….This is Bullshit!!
To make the point clear, let’s not look at actual troop numbers, but instead at the percentage of each countries army that has been deployed to liberate Iraq:
94.8 USA
42.2 UK
20.9 Latvia (this is a whopping 120 soldiers)
19.5 Netherlands
17.6 Mongolia (this is another whopping 160 soldiers)
17.3 Denmark
14.7 El Salvador
14.5 Austrália
12.3 Dominican Republic
11.5 Italy
10.2 Poland
So…of the 49 Nations in the Coalition, only 10 sent at least 10% of their military!!
Where is the other 85% of the Australian army? The other 95% of the Ukraine troops? The other 98% of the Czech Republic’s troops? Please don’t confuse my point!...I am not arguing that these countries aren’t doing their part, I am arguing that the Bush administration grossly exaggerated their commitment and contribution to win support for the war…and now as we bury our 1000th American coffin we see the Coalition of the Willing for what it is...a paper tiger! Foreign Policy Specialist, Hewitt
Check these sited numbers out at (http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html)

JAY
You state, " You mentioned that, “he has a broad range of international experience and has lived in four continents: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America.” Well so have I!! So I guess that makes me the Foreign Policy Specialist in our round table (and Zelin too, if he ever chimes in). Now merely living in a country for a few months bar tending, waiting tables, and watching their news (bias in thier views as well as ours is bias in ours) is different than what this guy has done. I have pasted his profile. If you think you are more credible I'd like to hear your argument. I think it would be amusing. His Profile Nile Gardiner’s key areas of specialization include the Anglo-U.S. Special Relationship, post-war Iraq, and the role of Great Britain and Europe in the U.S.-led alliance against international terrorism and ‘rogue states.’ As a leading authority on transatlantic relations, Dr. Gardiner has advised the Executive Branch of the United States Government on a range of key issues, from the role of international allies in post-war Iraq to U.S.-British leadership in the war on terror. Dr. Gardiner’s policy papers are read widely on Capitol Hill, where he is regularly sought for advice on major foreign policy matters. He frequently briefs delegations of political leaders and journalists from across the world. Prior to joining Heritage, Gardiner was Foreign Policy Researcher for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Working in her Private Office, Gardiner assisted Lady Thatcher with her latest book, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World, published by HarperCollins. He served as an aide to Lady Thatcher from 2000 to 2002 and advised her on a number of international policy issues. Dr. Gardiner received his Ph.D. in British imperial history from Yale University in 1998, and received several academic awards, including the International Security Studies Smith Richardson Foundation Fellowship, the David Gimbel Fellowship and the Mellon Foundation Research Fellowship. In addition, Gardiner has two Masters degrees from Yale and a BA in Modern History from Oxford University. He has a broad range of international experience and has lived in four continents: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America. Nile Gardiner appears frequently as a foreign policy analyst and political commentator on national and international television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, Sky News, BBC, CBC, and NPR. He has conducted over 500 media interviews on behalf of the Heritage Foundation. His media appearances include ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ (Fox), ‘Crossfire’ (CNN), ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ (MSNBC), ‘Hannity & Colmes’ (Fox), ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ (CNN), ‘Fox and Friends’ (Fox), ‘Special Report with Brit Hume’ (Fox), ‘The Early Show’ (CBS), ‘Studio B with Shepard Smith’ (Fox), ‘Your World With Neil Cavuto’ (Fox), ‘Big Story With John Gibson’ (Fox), ‘Q&A’ (CNN International), and ‘All Things Considered’ (NPR). Gardiner gave the BBC world television live analysis of President George W. Bush’s major White House speech ahead of the outbreak of war with Iraq, as well as analysis of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s historic address to Congress for Fox News. Dr. Gardiner has been widely quoted in major U.S. and international media (including The New York Times, Associated Press, Le Monde, The Boston Globe, and The London Sunday Times) and has written for a number of leading publications including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, National Review, and Insight. Are you stating that troops alone constitute shared responsibility? because if you do I disagree. some of those percentages look pretty good. please respond to the Dr. Nile comment

BOB
Wow Jay...I will be sure to avoid all future jokes! I was completely kidding....I just thought that it was funny and I wanted to brag about travel. Now about this guy. You wrote that: His media appearances include:
‘The O’Reilly Factor’ (Fox), ‘Crossfire’ (CNN), ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ (MSNBC), ‘Hannity & Colmes’ (Fox), ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ (CNN), Fox and Friends’ (Fox),‘Special Report with Brit Hume’ (Fox), ‘The Early Show’ (CBS), ‘Studio B with Shepard Smith’ (Fox), ‘Your World With Neil Cavuto’ (Fox), ‘Big Story With John Gibson’ (Fox), ‘Q&A’ (CNN International), and ‘All Things Considered’ (NPR). Gardiner gave the BBC world television live analysis of President George W. Bush’s major White House speech ahead of the outbreak of war with Iraq, as well as analysis of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s historic address to Congress for Fox News."
Do you see a pattern? I don't trust FOX folks for fair and balanced coverage. So the Foreign Policy Specialists from the left think the Coalition is a joke, and the Foreign Policy Specialists from the right think its a triumph. This is not a surprising. My point is simply this: The Coalition is 49 Nations strong! 15 Nations didn't send a single soldier! 39 Nations sent less than 10% of their military! 42 Nations sent less than 500 troops! IN MY OPINION...this is not even close to the level of International cooperation that Bush claimed that we had going into this mess.

JAY
Do you trust the sources of media that I highlighted? You have already viewed his credentials, but conveniently left them out of your response along w/ the other media outlets. Did you know that there are many left wingers on Fox? ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ (Fox), ‘Crossfire’ (CNN), ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ (MSNBC), ‘Hannity & Colmes’ (Fox), ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ (CNN), Fox and Friends’ (Fox),‘Special Report with Brit Hume’ (Fox), ‘The Early Show’ (CBS), ‘Studio B with Shepard Smith’ (Fox), ‘Your World With Neil Cavuto’ (Fox), ‘Big Story With John Gibson’ (Fox), ‘Q&A’ (CNN International), and ‘All Things Considered’ (NPR). Gardiner gave the BBC world television live analysis of President George W. Bush’s major White House speech ahead of the outbreak of war with Iraq, as well as analysis of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s historic address to Congress for Fox News. You must not have seen these in your "pattern"

KYLE
"Did you know that there are many left wingers on Fox?" - Jay Simply not true. Here is a link to the bios for the staff of the Fox News Channel. http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/index.html#bios There were only 3 of the 145 "Bios" listed for the network that could be called "left wingers." Alan Colmes, Al Damato, and Juan Williams are the only ones that fit the bill. Now I suppose there are a couple of other people on the list that I have never heard of that are left wing. For the sake of argument I will more than triple the number I know and concede that there are 10 "left wingers" out of 145 or about 7%. That doesn't qualify as "many." Fox News is a good channel to watch for fair and balanced coverage of the weather, the Laci Peterson Trial, Michael Jackson Trial, Kobe Bryant Trial, and Paris Hilton. For politics, every single story they do is preceeded by and followed up with conservative commentary.

JAY
you caught me. it was sort of a sarcastic remark. i knew it was heavily loaded w/ conservatives, but i didn' know it was that bad.

MANEY
Is this a bad thing though? MSN and CNN I feel when I watch those channels do the same but more towards the left. They will report, then add a commentary with a more left side perspective. This is common knowledge anyway though.