From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Who forgot to feed the kids?

November 24, 2004 8:57 AM

Somehow, despite the UN Oil for Food scandal, it seems Saddam fed the children better than the United States. Acute malnutrition among young children has doubled since the war -- 400,000 children are suffering "chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein."

"People talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice."

Makes sense for a dictator to keep people "fat and happy" to ensure control over the country.

More from the archive in Health, Incompetence.

Who forgot to feed the kids? (11.24.2004)

Next Entry: Partners in the American Dream (11.30.2004)
Previous Entry: Dan Rather resigned (11.23.2004)

Read the 61 comments.

Tom from Madison:

The neo-cons seem to want to use this issue to beat up the UN and liberals.

How about dealing with childhood disease and malnutrition? Shouldn't this have gone into the war plan? If we break it and don't fix it, who are the Iraqi people going to trust, and ultimately back?

Wed Nov 24 2004 9:25 AM

Right Wing Robby:


Dictator good.

America Bad.

By the Way Tom. CONGRATULATIONS! The Declaration of Indepence isnt allow in a school in California. Can you guess why? So much for American history. You liberals are ruining this country and its culture, one lawsuit at a time.
I cant even believe this one.

Lets hear you defend it Tom.

Oh yeah and tomarrow is Thanksgiving. Here is a Presidential quote for you.

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to
obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits,
and humbly to implore His protection and
favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have,
by their joint committee, requested me
"to recommend to the people of the United States a
day of public thanksgiving and prayer,
to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of
Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of
government for their safety and happiness"

We need to get this President out of our schools. By the way, its George Washington.

The only thing that makes me afraid for this country is what liberals are doing to it everday. They are ruining its culture and taking away its history.

Bye Bye freedom.

Wed Nov 24 2004 1:57 PM


Robby The Robot,

"You liberals are ruining this country and its culture, one lawsuit at a time."

Actually, the discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Christian teacher.

I think it's a bit early to comment on this. The Reuters article only presents one side of the argument. That didn't stop you from rushing to judgement though. One side of the case is all it takes for you to declare a guilty verdict.

Wed Nov 24 2004 2:43 PM


Surely, Robbie, you can expand your list of phobias. Here are a few other things to be afraid about:
the double whammy of government debt and consumer debt that has been accumulated over the last three years, leading to a collapse in the price of the dollar as foreign banks refuse to let the American pigout continue;
the constraints on our freedom to watch sexy stuff, or disturbing stuff, or otherwise unvetted by the Christians stuff, which is coming down the pike;
the fear of terrorism -- always a good one. And since the current administration has done diddly squat about OBL in the last two years, one that you should pay attention to;
the perennial fear of a gas price hike smackdown -- made more likely by a combination of the last named item (a terrorist attack on a Saudi petroleum port facility would be killer -- not that our current prez gives a good damn), plus the weakening dollar -- Arab states are very particular about the strength of the currencies they liked to be paid in;
etc., etc. Those are just the starters. Of course, since you seem to be the type who trembles like a rabbit every time you hear a bit of Limbaugh-ish pseudo news, there is also the News of the World stuff, alien invasions, and satanic cults hypnotizing your kids through the tv -- which are just about level with your threshold of credulousness.
Happy holidays!

Wed Nov 24 2004 3:06 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Yeah Paul,

Its the teacher that filed the lawsuit because he is not allowed to teach his class correct history or pass out a copy of the DoI.

This is an attack on this countries culture and this countries history. And you and your liberals friend who claim to love this country, are behind it.

Then you sit around and wonder why Americans question your patriotism.

Wed Nov 24 2004 3:20 PM


Robby The Robot,

So why did you say, "You liberals are ruining this country and its culture, one lawsuit at a time"?

I thought you should be grateful for this particular lawsuit, because you seem to agree with it. But, I guess you fundies don't have to make sense, do you?

Anyway, you are seriously rushing to judgement dude. Take a valium or two and wait until we hear the full story. Then, meet back here foaming at the mouth per your usual, and we can discuss it in full.

If the facts of the situation are as the Christian teacher claims, which I highly doubt, then I would be on the side of the teacher, for the simple reason that history is history and historical documents are historical documents. They should not be censored in the classroom. Period.

However, if the teacher was presenting certain excerpts of historical documents solely to promote the Christian religion, then I think the teacher is wrong. Religion is not to be taught in public schools.

So, was the teacher teaching history or religion? I'll withold my judgement until that becomes clear.

Wed Nov 24 2004 3:55 PM


Hey Robby, here's a quote for you:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

- President John Adams

Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

Wed Nov 24 2004 4:59 PM

Right Wing Robby:

R, Thats a fine quote. Nothing wrong with it and I agree. It is founded on the declaration of Independance though and thats the issue.


This is happening all over the place. If it werent a holiday eve, I'd spam you with links.
Instead Ill just say have a happy holiday.

Wed Nov 24 2004 6:04 PM


I agree with Paul in the aspect that if Williams WAS deliberately trying to teach these kids religion and that "our founders were religious men" and implying that everyone should be Christian, then that's obviously wrong. If he wasn't, then the school's just full of nothing but "politically-correct" idiots.

And the fact that it's happening "all over the place" according to RWR... well depends on where these areas are really. If it was some conservative state that was primarily Christian or something, then that would probably explain WHY. Same could be said for these same Christians teaching Creationism, or who want it to be taught, in school. Is that okay to do? Not really because it forces religious beliefs onto children. To me, it's the same principle.

People need to get off their high-horses, and this isn't just for those religious fanatics, but for those horribly-politically-correct liberals who take EVERYTHING out of context. If this is a case of the "politically correct" liberal, then it's unfortunate that RWR has to always categorize any liberal under that label instead of possibly thinking that maybe not every liberal is like that.

Oh, and a Happy Turkey Day to you all. Enjoy your birds!

Wed Nov 24 2004 7:15 PM


Well Robby, with all due respect, it looks like the Declaration of Independence banning article you linked to is a dud. This really shows the state the media is in right now.

"Declaration Of Independence banned!

The seemingly preposterous headline made major waves on the conservative Drudge Report and Fox News network Wednesday, joining Reuters and the Associated Press, in a misleading story that exhibited serious reportorial negligence, RAW STORY has learned.

The story, which reports that a California teacher has been banned from giving students documents from American history that refer to God, including the Declaration of Independence, is said a product of right-wing spin.

In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance."

Honestly, who would ban the Declaration of Independence?

The rest is here:

Wed Nov 24 2004 11:20 PM

Tom from Madison:


I was making a point that Iraqi children should be cared for. I believe it's the moral thing to do. This has nothing to do with lawyers or liberals. It has to do with common decency. If we had a President who was a good Christian or a good human being, his actions would protect Iraqi children, not endanger them.

I've noticed that many neo-con types like to change the subject to a pre-rehearsed argument about a DIFFERENT SUBJECT when they are in an indefensible position. The plight of children in Iraq can't be blamed on liberals or trial lawyers.

All supporters of this President's policy of pre-emption must deal with the consequences of this war. A lot of innocent people are now in harm's way. As a nation claiming the moral high ground, we are accountable. Liberals didn't start this, QUIT TRYING TO BLAME THEM!

Thu Nov 25 2004 6:27 AM

Right Wing Robby:

Today I am thankful that the majority of Americans agree with me, and not with the liberals on this site.

Thu Nov 25 2004 6:56 AM



Well said. The neoconservatives will throw up as much smoke as possible to avoid dealing with the results of their despicable war. This thread was hijacked in order to avoid talking about the painful subject of malnourished children of Iraq.

Thu Nov 25 2004 10:22 AM


"Today I am thankful that the majority of Americans agree with me, and not with the liberals on this site."

Though that "majority" was by a relatively small margin. There's still 49% of us who don't agree with you. But really, that's old news.

I do find it funny that the discussion here has NOTHING to do with the original topic, unless somehow the liberals who are supposedly destroying this country have something to do with Saddam feeding his country's children better than we are doing for them right now. Though I expect food to not be in GREAT supply during war, but the doubling of malnutrition isn't something to be ignored. BTW, are those sanctions on Iraq still enforced?

Thu Nov 25 2004 11:56 AM

Right Wing Robby:

Before the war the left blamed the US for killing Children with sanctions. You all remember this, the words are probably still impreinted on your tongues.

Then the oil for food program, designed to solve this problem was being looted by the dictator you libs are sticking up for. He isn't using the money to feed the children but rather to pay off the UN. The organization you trust.

You liberals are just fine with that. France was taking money directly out of the funds that were designed to feed the children. But from the left, not a peep.

Why not complain that the people who stole the money form the starving children should be giving that money back to the starving children? No,of course not. Why? Its simple. Those people arent from the US, and you only blame the US.

Now you claim the exact same thing, and you act like its something new. All of a sudden its the "new outrage". Meanwhile, the money designed for that purpose is sitting in some bank account somewhere.

Wheres the outrage? There is none, because this isnt about the children. Its about blaming the USA.

So let me summarize.

Dictator Good.

America Bad.

Fri Nov 26 2004 8:41 AM


The original post by Jim has something amazing in it...

"During the previous regime, I used to work on the government projects. Now there are no projects," [Kasim Said] said.

So, he used to work for a murderous dictator doing odd jobs and now that the US removed him, Said is out of a job. Boo freaking hoo!

There is lots of reconstruction going on in Iraq. If his "projects" weren't including killing people for Saddam, then I would imagine he will soon find work.

And even if he was a hit-man, there's lots of money in security work in Iraq (y'all can check out Jim's "Most expensive Taxi Ride" for info on that)

While hearing stories of suffering children is harsh (no matter where in the world it is), this father's lost job is something we should be celebrating!

Fri Nov 26 2004 10:55 AM


"... the dictator you libs are sticking up for."

I don't recall any of us saying how GOOD Saddam was, or that he was an excellent leader, but you assume that because of a news post mentioning something positive about Saddam and something negative about the U.S. Even Jim said: "Makes sense for a dictator to keep people 'fat and happy' to ensure control over the country." And it does make sense, but in no way does that mean he thinks Saddam is GOOD. I never thought Saddam was this wonderful dictator (that's almost an oxymoron), but if you did go over to Iraq, you'd most likely get mixed feelings about him from the people there. There are those who hated him and are grateful that the U.S. is there, but there are a good number of people who are resentful towards the U.S. as well because technically we came in and interrupted their culture.

I don't know anything about the deal with France taking money, but maybe someone else does and can either back it up or dispell the myth (if it is).

And I was honestly asking about the sanctions. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

Fri Nov 26 2004 12:28 PM

Right Wing Robby:

You expect your liberal friends to enlighten on this subject? They are ignoring it. Its not just France, the scandal is far bigger. The reason you dont know anything about it is because your news sources are also ignoring it. Anything that might legitamize the US position is left out of such publications, just as it is downplayed on this site.

Want more? Just ask.

Saddam paid off the UN with the food money and the lefties complaining about the children dont care. Its not about the kids, its about blame.

Fri Nov 26 2004 12:47 PM

Tom from Madison:


there you go again trying to change the subject. We didn't invade Iraq because of the oil for food scam. This was yet another after the fact rationalization for this war. You still haven't explained how after US involvement, Iraqi children are worse off than they were before the invasion. Are you denying that this is true or are you simply avoiding the question?

As Jim pointed out, as terrible as Saddam was we are not showing Iraqis or anyone else that we can offer a lasting peace and a better way of life. It gets back to tragically PATHETIC planning for transition of power once Saddam was gone. It matters that Iraqi children are dieing. It matters morally and it matters pragmatically if you want people to follow you.

As for sources, you have listed a motley assortment. The moony-funded Washington times is a pathetic place to look for objective facts. Newmax is right-filtered news and the other two are right-wing think tanks. I'm well aware of what they have to say--and how "facts" get cherry-picked or omitted depending on talking points du jour. Maybe Bill O'Reilly's premium site would be equally illuminating?

Fri Nov 26 2004 1:50 PM


Tom, you've got wrong wing backed into his spider hole. He can run, but he can't hide!

Fri Nov 26 2004 1:59 PM


"The reason you dont know anything about it is because your news sources are also ignoring it."

Again, you need to stop assuming things about me just because I show signs of being liberal. Most of the news I watch is on major broadcast stations; out of my entire day, I probably spend anywhere from 2 hours to 5 hours watching the news and 2 or 3 hours max listening to independent media. You'd think the major stations would report the whole thing about France, Russia, and China and make a big deal about it since it'll make the U.S. look good for being in Iraq, right? And when I asked for anyone else's opinion, I meant ANYONE ELSE'S, left or right. If it's presented in a logical manner, then it's worth looking at. But you're out to destroy anyone with liberal tendencies, so how can I trust everything you say? It's like when Jim posts a link to a news story and you spin it somehow to have something to do with liberals destroying this country.

I did find it funny that when I checked out the story, there was a banner saying "Support President Bush" in the middle of the article. So if you're going to talk about "our" media being biased, you should also look at your own.

Fri Nov 26 2004 2:38 PM

Right Wing Robby:


Your denying the oil for food scandal? Whoa. Now thats left.

How about your precious New York Slimes.. They right wing too? Gimmie a break.

Your denial of what everyone on the planet except for those involved and the far far left agree on, the oil for food scandal, proves my point exactly. You cant even admit that the murderous dictator was paying off the UN even though its common knowledge, but you dont miss a chance to blame the US for the worlds problems. Its all over the news but you blindly defend Saddam.

Thats not changing the subject of children. Thats a bullseye on the subject of starving children.

You bias towards Saddam is overwhelmingly obvious.

And you wonder why people question your patriotism? You dont have any. You're Anti-American. Its goes way beyond disent, so save the classic lib line.

Fri Nov 26 2004 4:48 PM

Mike of the Great White North:


You are becoming a joke. And i'm not even talking about being 'Queenie' although you earned that one fair and square. I don't even want to waste my time pointing out your a blatent Bush cheerleader and cannot break from the mold to acknowledge when he bumbles. Everything he does is justifiable in your eyes when he does it so I'm not going to bother with your rhetorical BS. You question everyone's patriotism without scrutanizing your own. The founding fathers would be disgusted with big government, big brother, all hail king Bush cronies like you. You are the true anti american because you're out to destroy the constitution and all the freedoms it championed.

And enough with the oil for food program. If thats all you've got in your bag of arguments, you've lost. And if you think everyone who disagrees with this war and every stupid decision since the war by the Bush admin equates to support for Saddam, then i say a big F*&( U RWR. It's not a defence of Saddam to say Bush's policies are detrimental to the world. It's calling a spade a spade. Saddam was evil by his actions, no more so than Bush is now.

And you are so obviously full of S#!7 for trying to lump 'everyone on the planet into your ultra right wing mode of thinking. Last time i checked world opinion was overwhelmingly against military action in Iraq and viewing America as an imperial power.

Your sad RWR. Now go back to watching Fox News and keep brainwashing yourself. Or better yet, ship yourself off to Iraq with a bucket and shovel and go dig up some off Saddams WMD that justified this whole debauchery.

Fri Nov 26 2004 8:42 PM

Tom from Madison:

Thanks to all the good-hearted progressive friends who have shown RWR et al the small-mindedsess of their positions. The neo-cons are generally lacking a sense of perspective. I suppose that happens when you're so focused on implementing an ideology that you become blinded to the truth.

Yes, the oil for food scandal exists. It is one example of corruption in a corrupt part of the world.

However, if the US is claiming to be morally superior, we need to show it by our actions. As we speak, Halliburton and other contractors are making huge amounts of money while hundreds of coalition soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dieing.

This war appears to be more of an exercise in conquest than one of liberation. Our involvement is an affront to people of many faiths, but it should be a particular affront to Christians. Jesus is celebrated as the "Prince of Peace" not the baddest warrior on the planet. There is something evil about exploiting faith in Christ to justify getting rich from death and destruction.

The Pope and Bush's own church are on record opposing this war. I trust their judgment in spiritual matters much more than I trust a dried-out drunk, fortunate-son from Texas.

Sat Nov 27 2004 7:20 AM

evil conservative666:

Things are going along swimmingly in Iraq. The oil pipeline out of the country is almost finished. Gas is about to be 30 cents a gallon again so we can all drive tanks to work as long as we're around. We took out that great philanthropist Saddam, and are containing that human rights champion Osama. Pretty soon many Middle Easterners are going to be accepting God, the true root of all evil, into their life.

Now if I believed any of that, I'd be about as stupid as most of you.

Sat Nov 27 2004 8:03 AM


Does anybody remember that this is a WAR?!

All this talk about "feeding the children" is really pathetic...

Our job is to hunt down and kill terrorists in Iraq, which our wonderful troops are doing each and every day. We ridded the Iraqi people of their terrible dictator gov't, now we're killing off those who wish to bring it back. THIS IS WAR!

Do we need to be concerned about the welfare of the populous of Iraq? Of course! If we're to win the "hearts and minds"...

Do we need to be MORE concerned about ridding the threat of Saddam and those who wish to return his form of dictatorship? Of course!

You can talk about your sob story "the children need food" all day long, but the point is that we are winning, and we will win. And someday in the near future, Iraqis will decide their future and that will be the most amazing turn of events (next to Afganistan) in recent history...

Spreading Decmocracy in the Middle East is the ONLY way we will ever win the War on Terror...

Sat Nov 27 2004 8:54 AM

Tom from Madison:

Spreading democracy through pre-emptive war is immoral. It is pure arrogance of power so suggest that the goal of democracy in the Middle East justifies the killing of innocent civilians including children.

To put it in terms that even neo-idiots can understand, two wrongs don't make a right. Had Saddam attacked us on 9/11, attacking Iraq would have been justified--as self-defense only. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. We killed and are continuing to kill innocent people in this non-sequitor war linked to 9/11 only by the specious 3-word title: "war on terror." We are "at war" with Iraq only because Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz decided to start one.

Winning military victories against a people with no army is not hard. The problem is winning the peace. Every civilian death in Iraq that happens under our watch worsens the situation. It also makes the notion that democracy is just around the corner even more ludicrous.

Conquest and empire building don't go with democracy. They go against it.

Sat Nov 27 2004 1:11 PM

evil conservative666:


With all due respect, if your view was this country's view we wouldn't even be free to have this conversation. Our Dictator would forbid it. Take your pick, if you have half a brain I know what it is.

I'll raise my glass to being on the right side of history.

Sat Nov 27 2004 3:51 PM



"Does anybody remember that this is a WAR?!

All this talk about "feeding the children" is really pathetic..."

Well said. Those are Republican values to a tee.

Sat Nov 27 2004 4:12 PM



"neo-idiots". I love that!!!

Sat Nov 27 2004 4:14 PM

Marc D'or:

You know this is not the way things should be. But then again a bit of cheating does give us the news about Quentin Tarantino's next movie.

Sat Nov 27 2004 4:36 PM


Ethnocentrism is a dangerous thing. I think that's the only other thing I'll contribute to this "discussion."

Sat Nov 27 2004 11:11 PM

Tom from Madison:

Evil Conservative666:

Just what scenario did you have in mind whereby a failure to invade Iraq would lead to America ruled by a dictator? If you're going to make an extravagant claim like that, please back it up.

6-shooter's point is illustrative of neo-con talking points: the irrationality of false alternatives. Either invade or be conquered.

Let's remember the facts. America was never in any danger of being attacked by Iraq. The President's claims that Saddam was on his way to building nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons were not based in reality. It was fear mongering and it worked for some of the people some of the time.

The problem is this policy is causing needless deaths, costing huge amounts of money, and isolating us in the world. The price for protecting ourselves from pretend enemies is very high indeed.

Sadly, our own armed forces' compromised ability to recruit is yet another consequence of fighting this bogus war. Is anybody surprised at how hard it is for the National Guard to recruit these days?

Sun Nov 28 2004 8:38 AM

Kevin from Grand Rapids:

Hello. I watched your movie Outfoxed on a Public access channel. I don't know whether it was illegally broadcasted or not, but hey. Umm. What was I going to say?

Conservatives use the so called "Attack on Christianity", as a way to keep people blind to what is really go on. The conservative agenda is based on indifference and greed, not very Christian ideals. How are; paying Mexicans twenty three cents an hour, cutting funding for social programs, relaxing environmental regulations, furthering our country deeper in to debt, and going to war when your presidential approval ratings start to tank, moral actions?

I don't understand how being against the war in Iraq means you support Saddam Hussein. That is a fallacy in logic. I didn't support the war because I don't think invoking the name of God and attacking muslim countries that have no connections to September 11 or weapons of mass destruction is a good way to "combat" terrorism.

Sun Nov 28 2004 2:23 PM

evil conservative666:


I'm not talking about Iraq, and I figured you'd understand what I meant. Let me spell it out for you. I was thinking more along the line of stopping nazism and communism, but if you don't think that was important, North Korea could use a guy like you. In fact I'll pay for the plane ticket.

I can't believe it has to be said again, but EVERYBODY said Saddam probably had weapons, not just the president.

As for being isolated from the world, that's just plain wrong. The best example of why we're being opposed would be the French, who lost all their backdoor deals with Iraq when we invaded. Most everyone will come around in the end, and those that don't don't tend to have much say anyway.

Neo-con that.

Sun Nov 28 2004 3:12 PM

Johan of the blue-yellow Neutrals:

If the nazies and fascists are to the extreme right and the communists is on the extreme left, which side is the right one?

And on the whole, everyone thought that Saddam had weapons. Hans Blixt.

Sun Nov 28 2004 3:57 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Ummm no EC666, not EVERYBODY said Saddam probably had weapons. The neoconservative cabal in the Pentagon said he had weapons. Ahmed Chaliabi's Iraqi national congress said he had weapons. The upper management who were paid visits by Cheney at the CIA said they had weapons. Lapdog Blair had MI6 'sex' up the intelligence report to say he had weapons. The ultra conservative Italian spy agency (ISI?)backed by the conservative government leaked the Niger 'yellowcake' documents to the white house, which Ambasador Wilson proved false, so his wifes name was leaked. Shall i go on? I didn't believe the claims the white house made from day 1 simply because i checked to see if their claims were true.

It's funny how when the CIA says gas centerfuges were most likely to be used for conventional rockets and had an alluminum coating that made it difficult for making uranium enrichment unless the coating was removed, the Pentagon stovepipes the worst case assesment without the previous caveat. It's funny how the inspections being held by Blix n co. weren't uncovering anything on the eve of the war? Sure we heard Bush and his cronies like Rummy talking about how sneaky Saddam was, and Rummy knowing that the WMD was in and around Tikrit, to the north, south, east and west. Who ended up being right?

I read all the articles and heard all the pundits, and those who i found the most credible were the ones against the war because they say no proof of WMD. These same people were villified on American networks as treasonous and traitors for their views. They were RIGHT. The EVERYONE you speak of were WRONG, yet they refuse to eat the crow they are due.

Also, you seem to enjoy picking on the French because they chose to stay out of an illegal war and because they tried to protect their own interests. Hypotheticaly, I'd laugh if Russia liberated Iraqi's from America and kicked Haliburton and all those other no-bid, back door deal contrators out of Iraq. Funny how America is always supposed to be given carte' blanche when acting in its own interests. News Flash. America's interests are not the worlds interests. Your isolation is of your own doing. Deal with it.

And i dont see how Nazism and Communism can be used in this argument. Saddam wasn't taking over Europe or threatening the US with nuclear death. And i think your closer to the mark than you realize EC... you have the makings of a Dictator in the white house already, who is already planting the seeds of what you can and cannot say in a conversation. It's dictator Bush, and your either with him or against him. And it seems that those who are against him are going to be the ones that aren't free to have that conversation.

Anyone play HalfLife 2 yet? America in 20 years if things dont change!

Sun Nov 28 2004 4:19 PM

Tom from Madison:

Evll Convervative666:

The comparison between Saddam in 2001 and the Axis Powers of the 1930s or the Soviet Union is absolutely ridiculous. Iraq was never a world power or a military threat to America the way Japan, Germany, or the Soviet Union were.

Iraq was most dangerous to its own people and its own neighbors. In large measure this was a result of weapons cababilities given to Saddam by the US. You must be aware of Rumsfeld being sent as Reagan's special envoy to Saddam in 1983. Again there is no parallel at all with Germany or the Soviet Union.

The line "Everybody was saying..." is absolutely no justification for a pre-emptive war which killed tens of thousands. Iraqi airspace was a no-fly zone. The Iraqi army was weak and under-equipped. Inspectors were on the ground finding out what real intelligence already knew--there were no WMDs. This pretending to not know that there were no WMDs is a complete charade.

The US is increasingly isolated no matter what neo-colored glasses one is looking through. Check the list of countries that have left the coalition. This isn't a successul occupation.

Sun Nov 28 2004 4:23 PM

evil conservative666:


I'm not comparing the two, but I will comment on your remark. Japan, Germany, and the USSR all posed no threat to us at one point. Ignoring them for years and years let them build up to the point that they were a threat. Finally we're dealing with a problem before it's a threat, but apparently it's not good enough.

I've had enough arguing with a tape repeating Michael Moore for one night, and I'm done with this point. Have a nice night, and I'll be glad the right is still in the majority.

Sun Nov 28 2004 4:55 PM

Tom from Madison:

Apparently the neo-cons have a lot to learn about Hitler's rise to power. There are many lessons to be learned from Germany in the 1930s.

The Nazis believed in pre-emptive war. They were also worried about homosexuals and degenerative art. They were deeply suspicious of critics of the government--a government eventually dominated by overtly military, über-patriots. Does any of this sound familiar?

Nazis believed that Germans could best control the destiny of the world. They thought they had a special truth and a destiny that was theirs for the taking. That vision was and is evil.

I am deeply suspicious of any American President who would claim to have the moral authority to sacrifice American and Iraqi lives in pursuit of Iraqi freedom. The President of the United States is an elected official, not the Emperor of World, certainly not the Messiah of the Middle East.

Sun Nov 28 2004 7:54 PM

evil conservative666:

The nazis were genocidal. Prove that our military is and I'll change sides.

Sun Nov 28 2004 10:47 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Tom says comparing Saddam with the Axis powers is ridiculous then begins drawing comparisions between the Bush administration and Hitler.

Once again Tom you have defended the dictator while trashing the President. You are are anti-American, pro dictator. Your willingness to make comparisons between your President and one of the most evil people ever in history, while defending Saddam shows me exactly where your loyalties are.

Mon Nov 29 2004 6:14 AM

Tom from Madison:

You are missing my point--and once again engaging in neo-con illogic.

The military is being abused by this President for his own agrandissement. Military personnel and civilians, both Iraqi and coalition, are dieing based on falsehoods told by the President and his administration to the US and to the World.

Our President's non-factual rhetoric and crusading aspirations are un-American and more befitting a military dictatorship than a democracy. We have already seen: attempted justification for domestic spying, suspension of habeus corpus rights, suggestion that the Geneva Convention no longer applies, and general refusal to participate in world-wide initiatives such as the Kyoto Accords and the World Court.

In short, Bush and Neo-cons aspire to be accountable to no one. They aren't even officially counting Iraqi civilian deaths. This is morally wrong and profoundly un-Democratic. We are increasingly acting like hypocrites, claiming to support democracy, but not walking the talk. This should concern true conservatives and anyone who questions using the end to justify the means.

Mon Nov 29 2004 6:23 AM


Is this the same world court that wanted to arrest Bill Clinton for bombing Kosovo? Perhaps George should rethink this and sign a limited agreement.

Mon Nov 29 2004 7:27 AM

evil conservative666:

Enough. The people you call "neo-conservatives" are 51% of the country now. Plain and simple, no argument. The President has had his referendum, and more than half of us believe he's acting in the country's best interest. Not agreeing with his policies is fine, and if you present a good case, understandable. Comparing his presidency to Hitler's, in addition to being ignorant, is dangerous. It makes you look like an frothing idiot, and a crybaby to boot. Even Jim is keeping quiet, he probably knows better than to align himself with you and Paul, the extreme end of the paranoid left.

Mon Nov 29 2004 7:28 AM


"Comparing his presidency to Hitler's, in addition to being ignorant, is dangerous."

Did you mean to use the word "equating"? Comparing the two things isn't the same as saying they are equal. Tom merely pointed out key areas in which the Bush administration's policies look similar to the Nazis. Instead of arguing on the points, which you apparently are unable to do, you attack him for the very idea of comparing Glorious Leader to Hitler.

Thinking people use comparisons all the time. Comparing does not mean equating. Bush is not Hitler. But, your attempt to cut off discussion of this only shows that you are unable to defend against Tom's points.

Mon Nov 29 2004 9:55 AM



"The people you call "neo-conservatives" are 51% of the country now. Plain and simple, no argument."

There are maybe a few thousand true neocons, and the rest are all dupes. Which are you?

Mon Nov 29 2004 10:00 AM



"In short, Bush and Neo-cons aspire to be accountable to no one. They aren't even officially counting Iraqi civilian deaths. This is morally wrong and profoundly un-Democratic. We are increasingly acting like hypocrites, claiming to support democracy, but not walking the talk. This should concern true conservatives and anyone who questions using the end to justify the means."

BINGO!!! Where are the true conservatives to do battle with the neocons?

Oh wait, we're the true conservatives.

Mon Nov 29 2004 10:10 AM

evil conservative666:


I'll bite. Equating Bush's presidency to Hitler's, in addtion to being arrogant, is dangerous.

Careful how you say things, it exposes flawed thinking pretty quickly.

Mon Nov 29 2004 10:15 AM

evil conservative666:


I'll bite. Equating Bush's presidency to Hitler's, in addtion to being ignorant, is dangerous.

Careful how you say things, it exposes flawed thinking pretty quickly.

Mon Nov 29 2004 10:16 AM

evil conservative666:

Jim, can you delete that next to last post, I didn't mean to say arrogant then....

Mon Nov 29 2004 10:17 AM


Click on my name for an evisceration of a WSJ article on Fallujah. This part was fun (in a bitter, sarcastic kind of way):

"When you think about democracy in Iraq, just remember that most real experts admit that Saddam Hussein would win if he ran. This is the political situation that the US has created."

Mon Nov 29 2004 11:20 AM


That article is from Lew Rockwell, a libertarian. The title is "Read the WSJ, If You Can Stand It".

Mon Nov 29 2004 11:25 AM

Tom from Madison:


thanks for the support and for correctly pointing out that the Bush coalition of voters includes some non-conservatives, and many different types of conservatives, not just the neo-cons who ARE A MINORITY. People who voted for John McCain, Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter generally wouldn't fit the mold of "neo-con." My guess is those folks aren't on Karl Rove's Christmas list either.

As usual, the Bush defenders here are not responding to specifics. I want to know why this President is allowed BY ANYONE to avoid accountability for his actions. Having an accountable President is basic to having a democracy. He wouldn't even testify under oath to the 9/11 Committee.

I have to wonder. When neo-con kids are being taught about democracy, do their teachers or parents tell them to "be like W"? When I was in school, making stuff up was not an option when you didn't like or didnt' know the facts! Nor was it acceptable to say "That's what all the OTHER kids are saying!"

Mon Nov 29 2004 11:41 AM

Right Wing Robby:

Letter to Right wing friends,

Todays RCP average of the approval ratings of George W Bush.

Approve 52.8%
Disapprove 43.0%

This had improved since the election. Paul and Tom's minority is becoming even more minor as the days and week go by.

The great thing about America is that its people decide what good for the country and themselves and not the extremists. The lefties here are the extremists. They represent the minority in a minority party.

While we, as the majority party, may think we come here and engage the left in discussion, the truth is these people represent the most extreme factions of the democrats; the Michael Moore wing of the party.

It becomes very easy to think of democrats as being defined by the left who frequent this place, but they aren’t. The majority of Democrats would never make such comparisons or equate their President to Hitler in any way and take a pro-America posture. Most democrats are proud of America, not ashamed.

I think it’s important to remember this and not categorize all democrats based on the extreme position these libs have. I’m guilty of this myself. Its best not take them too seriously, but rather as a form of entertainment.

Always remember, our postions and ideas are the ones that swept the elections and will in 2 years.

Mon Nov 29 2004 11:43 AM


Bush was answerable to the people during the election. Apparently a majority of the people have judged him and found him suitable to continue to leading the nation. Just as a majority of the people judged Kerry and the democrat party to be UNSUITABLE to lead. Even after spending 100 billion dollars and lining up several Hollyweird "celebrities" to speak on his behalf the stupid people of America couldn't be "duped" into voting for Kerry.

Just as a the liberal wing of the democrat party is a small minority their loud vocals have dragged the entire party to its lowest point since the Civil War. If Howard Dean takes control of the DNC the Republican party will only add it majorities in the House & Senate and retain the White House in 4 years.

Mon Nov 29 2004 12:34 PM


I tossed this to Jim a while back. If you don't want to equate Bush to another outside the US, you really don't have to look far. I'll gladly tie Bush and Nixon together.

Fellow Citizens:

By this pamphlet you are now called upon to demand the exercise of congressional responsibility.

We seek to provide you a means by which to effect the peaceful overthrow of a tyranny. There should be no mistake about it, a usurper has acquired power in America. He seeks to make it absolute.

He and his aides lie to us on television and berate us for our disbelief. He speaks to us flanked by a photograph of family and our flag which he wears on his lapel. Beside him stares a bust of Abraham Lincoln. He confesses to crimes against the Constitution and believes he speaks exoneration.

He invites all of you to participate in his crimes. He says "they all do it." He accepts "responsibility" but not blame. The "blame," he feels, belongs to those who opposed him on his rise to power.

He degrades our institutions by his appointments and causes essentially decent men and women to rationalize and engage in personal cover-ups.

In this manner he seeks to corrupt an entire people whom he invites to participate, with our House of Representatives, in a politician's cover-up.

He speaks of law and order and discharges the public's prosecutor. He secretly records the conversations of his friends and withholds them, then offers them, in a tantalizing gesture, to an outraged people. He relies on Executive Privilege and the institution of their Presidency.

He orders generals to stop investigations and hires a general to issue his orders. He uses lawyers to subvert the law, press spokesmen to lie to the press, investigators to cover-up investigations, and patriotism to subvert the Constitution. [....]

RWR, remember that fear, religion, and morality ruled the day in the elections. Fact, truth, and a real platform was missing from all camps.

I am a humanist first and foremost. Take the right and the left and someone find some new damn positions that put humanity first.

Mon Nov 29 2004 1:01 PM

Tom from Madison:

Perhaps the biggest lie spread by neo-cons about people with whom they disagree is that we are unpatriotic. I love my country as much as any neo-con. Supporting an unjust war is not proof of patriotism. However the refusal to accept dissent is absolutely UNPATRIOTIC.

The continuing issue with this war is not only that it is being waged, but that it is being managed SO BADLY! Again, the issue is accountability.

Was it really necessary that so many civilians were put at risk to the point where some were beheaded? Jimmy Carter was voted out of office, in part, because of 66 or so hostages taken in Iran. We now have a president so adept at PR and damage control that he doesn't even get asked about beheaded American civilians.

Our standards are low and our news is managed like never before. The pathetic part of this situation is how neo-cons and their followers can look at what is going on and think that things are going well.

Mon Nov 29 2004 4:15 PM


Just take a gun and get it over

Tue Nov 30 2004 7:15 AM

Johan of the blue-yellow Neutrals:

>Just take a gun and get it over

Dont wanna, killing people, even if they are Tom or Paul or dhermesc or even RWR is simply wrong.

Tue Nov 30 2004 11:07 AM


Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.) Joe agrees: "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Tue Mar 29 2005 4:59 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart