NationStates Jolt Archive


Explosive new documentary blows lid off neocons exploiting 911 to hijack the world

MKULTRA
11-09-2004, 21:24
*911 looked at in this context appears to be an attack that neoconservatives needed to advance their facist agend on a global basis kind of the same way the nazis exploited the burning of the reichstag to seize power

AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting to talk to you, Sut, from Buffalo, a city that has suffered from the aftermath of 9/11, to talk you to, who have come to New York, and now are in our Firehouse Studios, just blocks from Ground Zero. Can you introduce Hijacking Catastrophe, why you made it?

SUT JHALLY: When we sat down to think about this film about a year ago, myself and the co-director and producer of this, Jeremy Earp, we wanted to do two things: We wanted to explain clearly what exactly the war in Iraq was about. Given that the lies of the Bush administration are totally unraveling, the lies about the weapons of mass destruction, the lies about Saddam Hussein being connected to Osama Bin Laden. We wanted to get at the real reasons for the war. To do that, we have to trace back the influence of a small right wing cabal within this Bush administration. And the plans that they had laid out for the invasion of Iraq actually ten years ago. On one hand, we wanted to give Americans a clear explanation of why exactly are we in this mess in Iraq and the incredible costs that are being paid in terms of dead and maimed American soldiers, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and billions of dollars flowing out of this country. What are the reasons for that. That was one reason. The other thing we wanted to do, we tried to anticipate a year ago, what exactly the Republican strategy would be to try and sell this crazy war. And in fact, after looking at the convention last week, we actually hit it almost dead on. We knew that they would be evoking the memory of 9/11. We knew they would be trying to scare people so that they would not think clearly about what was going to be going on. And that they would be presenting themselves as strong leaders and also denigrating the Democrats as, as Arnold Schwarzenegger said, as “girlie men.” So we also wanted to look at the selling of this. The film does both. The film looks at why we're there and also how this crazy agenda has been sold to the American people. What's really interesting is when Paul Wolfowitz first came up with this in 1992, Paul Wolfowitz is now Deputy to Rumsfeld in the Department of Defense. When he first wrote, in 1992, the tail end of the first Bush administration, he wrote something called “The Defense Planning Guidance.” In this was the first laying out of a post-Cold War era strategy for America, in which they would become, in which America would become the sole superpower for essentially forever. When this was first announced in 1992, everyone thought was crazy. People within the administration thought he was crazy. Joseph Biden was the leading Democrat at that time. He could barely speak when he heard this. Our European allies were up in arms. Now what is really interesting is: What was crazy in 1992, by 2002 had become official government policy. And what we look at is how 9/11 was used to sell that, how the fear and anxiety engendered by 9/11 was used by this administration to push through this agenda that they could not have gotten any other way.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Sut Jhally, who is the director of this new film, Hijacking Catastrophe. He is the Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation. Let's take a look and a listen to a clip of Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear and The Selling of American Empire. In this clip, we begin with the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Jody Williams.

JODY WILLIAMS: I understand that they want the American public to believe that the invasion of Iraq was the response to September 11. I think it is a lie. I believe that it is part of a neoconservative agenda to assert that American hegemony is untouchable, and September 11 gave them the opportunity to put in play plans that they had been considering since the first Bush administration.

NARRATOR: In all of its previous incarnations and long before 9/11 and the current war on terror, the Wolfowitz doctrine had identified regime change in Iraq as a crucial first step towards global domination by force. In a widely circulated letter to President Bill Clinton in 1998, the members of the Project for the New American Century challenged the President to act forcefully and militarily to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two years later, George W. Bush would hand-pick many of these same neoconservatives for key foreign policy posts in the Pentagon and State Department. Once installed in government positions, as recent interviews with a number of former members of the Bush administration have revealed, the group maintained its long-standing focus on Iraq, a focus that intensified after the attacks of September 11.

MARK DANNER: In the meetings of the inner sanctum of the Bush administration, the attack on Iraq was brought out from almost the first days. Even though there was no evidence whatever that the Iraqis had been involved in this.

RICHARD CLARKE: They dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, I want you to find whether Iraq did this. George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

PAUL O’NEILL: From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person, and that he needed to go.

NARRATOR: Just five hours after American airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, and without any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already ordering his aides to draw up plans for striking Iraq. The notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted: “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.,” meaning Saddam Hussein. “Go massive,” Rumsfeld continued in the notes. “Sweep it all up. Things related, and not.”

ROBERT JENSEN: The problem for the Bush administration is that plans that had already existed for regime change in Iraq had to be justified. They could not just go in without public support. The public support was creating by connecting Saddam Hussein to those fears of terrorism. The fear generated by 9/11, the fear of terrorist networks has to be transferred to Iraq, that is, the American people have to learn to be as afraid of Saddam Hussein as they are of Osama Bin Laden.

NARRATOR: Soon after September 11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a small intelligence office in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans to create the rationales for the already planned attack on Iraq. To convince people that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that he was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia Office. She witnessed how the Office of Special Plans issued talking points about Iraq for senior government officials allegedly based on intelligence.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: The information there drawn from fact. You can find bits and pieces of fact throughout, but framed, articulated, crafted to convince someone of what? Well, of things that weren't true. Things that were not true. 9/11, Al Qaeda related to Saddam Hussein, possibly some involvement there.

GEORGE W. BUSH: The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: The very things that a year later, President Bush himself denies, and feigns his surprise: “I don't know why everybody thinks that.”

GEORGE W. BUSH: We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: I worked in a place where they concentrated on preparing this story line and selling it to everybody they could possibly sell it to.

ROBERT JENSEN: It wasn't the failure of intelligence, it was the manipulation of intelligence to achieve a political goal. They were disciplined. They stayed on message, they marshaled all of their forces in this relentless public relations campaign to convince the American people that there was a threat from Iraq.

NEWS ANNOUNCER: Day four of the Bush team’s full court press giving speech after speech after speech and issuing reports.

DONALD RUMSFELD: The United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

COLIN POWELL: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.

GEORGE W. BUSH: The choice is his – and if he does not disarm, the United States of America will lead a coalition and disarm him in the name of peace.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: And the President’s mouth, the Vice President’s mouth these same things that were given to us to put into our superiors, the senior civilian leadership’s mouths – he said things that were us to put to our theories now. These were not based on intelligence that we saw and everyone saw. They were based on a very selective reading of the intelligence and a creative packaging that you could put through these two big points that the President and Vice President and the whole neoconservative community used to justify this pre-emptive war on Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Karen Kwiatkowski, former Pentagon employee, part of the documentary, Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear and The Selling of American Empire. It is produced by Sut Jhally the Media Education Foundation in Western Massachusetts. Sut Jhally is in our New York studio. I'm here in Buffalo. Sut Jhally, can you talk about the power of these films at this time? You have got Hijacking Catastrophe, your film. There’s Outfoxed, the film by Robert Greenwald. Of course, Michael Moore's, Fahrenheit 9/11, the significance of them coming now?

SUT JHALLY: I think Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed, and Michael Moore's, Fahrenheit 9/11, showed the tremendous need and desire there is for people for new information at this time. I think the effects of these films we’ll only find out once the election has been held. The key to that is these films are – the key to the films is not only that they're produced, but they're watched, that they're used, they're used by activists and they engage with what's going on at that time. So distribution, I think is the most important aspect of this. I have been very encouraged by how widespread these films have been. Our film is opening tonight at Cinema Village in New York. It's opening in theaters around the country as well, but only a small number of them. I really support people to support independent film. We are also distributing this film through our website. We want this film to be available now, and so in fact these films have also indicated a new way to distribute which is not just theatrical, we can distribute in DVD at the same time. The website is http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/. We want to encourage people to get it now and show it to their friends. People that you wouldn't normally talk to about those things. Take it to your cable access station and show it.

AMY GOODMAN: Briefly, the purpose of the Media Education Foundation?

SUT JHALLY: We make films and videos to do with the media’s effect on society. What we really try to do is take the latest cutting edge academic research and translate it into an accessible form, so you don’t have to be an expert to understand it and to make knowledge in the University really matter in the world out there. I can't think of a more important time for that to happen than in the next eight weeks coming up to this election. Hijacking Catastrophe is an attempt to take what we know, the latest cutting edge research that we know, the truth that we know, to put it in an accessible form so that ordinary people can engage with the most important issues of day.

AMY GOODMAN: And again your website.

SUT JHALLY: Our website is http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/. We are committed to getting this out in a major way. We have priced it very affordably. People can get it for $20. We hope that people will take it and use it as much as possible between now and November 2nd.

AMY GOODMAN: And it's opening in tonight in New York at Cinema Village and can open anywhere in the country, just ask your movie theater. Sut Jhally, thank you for being with us. Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation.
www.democracynow.org
Bozzy
11-09-2004, 21:40
So now you post spam for pay websites?

How very oppotunistic of you.
Gymoor
11-09-2004, 22:02
Bozzy,

It' amazing to see how a conservative argues. If you argue rationally against it, you just discredit the source, without any proof. We'd all be more impressed if you actually had anything intelligent to say.
_Susa_
11-09-2004, 22:13
Democracynow.org is one of the most biased and politically partisan websites out there.
Globes R Us
11-09-2004, 22:15
Fact: Saddam Hussein was / is a murdering butcher who encouraged his whole family to follow in his footesteps.

Fact: Iraq is better off without him.

Fact: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.


Fact: The US & UK invaded Iraq without any international authority.

Fact: The US & UK invaded Iraq 'pre-emptively'.

Fact: The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the West out.

Fact: If the West pulled out quickly, Iraq would descend into full blown civil war that may then one day warrant international action.

Fact: When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered his private army to Suadi Arabia, which turned him down.

Fact: The world is a more dangerous place since the invasion of Iraq than before.
Drenas
11-09-2004, 22:16
just so you know This isn't another example of "how conservatives argue" it's just a joke, so if you can't take it don't read it.

Explosive documentary? yeah, let me strap some dynamite to it and we can all witness just how "Explosive" it is :D
Drenas
11-09-2004, 22:28
fact 1: True
fact 2: True
fact 3: Most likely True
fact 4: Yeah, so what?
fact 5: Yeah, so what?
fact 6: We know; thats why were trying to turn thier country over to them, we just want to make sure they can handle it when we do.
fact 7: Most likely True
fact 8: Really? I didn't know that... ok but whats your point?
fact 9: How do you figure that?
Bozzy
11-09-2004, 22:29
Bozzy,

It' amazing to see how a conservative argues. If you argue rationally against it, you just discredit the source, without any proof. We'd all be more impressed if you actually had anything intelligent to say.
Don't flame me for pointing out the obvious. Spam is what spam is. I don't see any general rules against it in this forum, but it does show a certain lack of couth. I made no argument of any other kind. You may remove yourself from your high-horse and apologize now.


Our website is http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/. We are committed to getting this out in a major way. We have priced it very affordably. People can get it for $20..
Drenas
11-09-2004, 22:32
20$ for a liberal rant, uh I mean documentary? they're committed to making a tidy profit thats what thier committed to :rolleyes:
Nueva Tierra
11-09-2004, 22:37
Hey i have a solution to this entire thread, if you dont like Kerry (aka hate bush) then vote Kerry. If you like bush, vote bush. And if you can't vote because you don't live in the US or are not a citizen, then stop whining and become one so you can do something about your opinions. The US is the most powerful nation in the world and if you dont like what we're doing then you and all your buddies can go form your own nation and start a big nasty war and settle all our disputes. Or you can support the UN and we'll completely ignore you because Nelson Mandela is not president of the US, George W. Bush is.
Mentholyptus
11-09-2004, 22:54
Hey i have a solution to this entire thread, if you dont like Kerry (aka hate bush) then vote Kerry. If you like bush, vote bush. And if you can't vote because you don't live in the US or are not a citizen, then stop whining and become one so you can do something about your opinions. The US is the most powerful nation in the world and if you dont like what we're doing then you and all your buddies can go form your own nation and start a big nasty war and settle all our disputes. Or you can support the UN and we'll completely ignore you because Nelson Mandela is not president of the US, George W. Bush is.

Hey I have a solution too: stop being so damned illogical and arrogant. People who make statements like these make America look bad.

EDIT: and Nelson Mandela is not president of the UN, nor is he terribly involved in it. Also, Al Gore is the president of the US, until January. ;)
Drenas
11-09-2004, 23:14
"Also, Al Gore is the president of the US, until January"
Sad. You actually beleive that? oh well it dosen't matter, George W. bush was inagurated weather you beleive he won or not. All you " Al Gore is president" people got left in the past. It really is time you got over it.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-09-2004, 23:24
Democracynow.org is one of the most biased and politically partisan websites out there.
]

No more so than Fox News.
Bereavia
11-09-2004, 23:29
Hey i have a solution to this entire thread, if you dont like Kerry (aka hate bush) then vote Kerry. If you like bush, vote bush. And if you can't vote because you don't live in the US or are not a citizen, then stop whining and become one so you can do something about your opinions. The US is the most powerful nation in the world and if you dont like what we're doing then you and all your buddies can go form your own nation and start a big nasty war and settle all our disputes. Or you can support the UN and we'll completely ignore you because Nelson Mandela is not president of the US, George W. Bush is.


First of all, don't be arrogant when your stating your opinion, it makes you look like a total asshole, and people more or likely won't value it. Secondly, it's everyone's right to say "I don't like the war." if they want to. So when you say "if you don't like what we're doing then you and all your buddies can go form your own nation and start a big nasty war and settle our disputes," well if you don't like what we "whine" about, then why don't YOU form your own nation to where if people voice an opinion other then yours, you can chastize them til your blue in the face. Thirdly, as far as your statement on Bush, Mandela, and the UN, who are you talking about ignoring us, if we support the UN? Are you talking about people who aren't mature enough to listen to everyone's else's views? hmmmm? Oh and I didn't even know Mandela was a part of the UN; when the hell did this happen?

Enough said
Bozzy
12-09-2004, 00:19
... Are you talking about people who aren't mature enough to listen to everyone's else's views?

Enough said


LOL - Actually, worrying about what everyone thinks of you is quite immature, particularly when it comes to your principles.

...
Hey I have a solution too: stop being so damned illogical and arrogant. People who make statements like these make America look bad.

same goes for you.

You really should be careful about calling people arrogant, or any other term. It is not nice and reflects much worse on you than anyone else.
Incertonia
12-09-2004, 00:27
Why does anyone even bother replying to MKULTRA's threads anyway? If all it does is get you worked up, why bother? It's not like those of us on the left spend all that much time defending him anyway.

<---Hey, I'm not a spamgirl anymore!
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:00
Democracynow.org is one of the most biased and politically partisan websites out there.
actually that would be Foxnews whose reporters were caught chanting "4 more years" in their trailer at the GOP convention--Democracynow criticizes John Kerry alot more then Foxnews would ever criticize any republican
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:12
Fact: Saddam Hussein was / is a murdering butcher who encouraged his whole family to follow in his footesteps.

Fact: Iraq is better off without him.

Fact: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.


Fact: The US & UK invaded Iraq without any international authority.

Fact: The US & UK invaded Iraq 'pre-emptively'.

Fact: The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the West out.

Fact: If the West pulled out quickly, Iraq would descend into full blown civil war that may then one day warrant international action.

Fact: When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered his private army to Suadi Arabia, which turned him down.

Fact: The world is a more dangerous place since the invasion of Iraq than before.
I agree with all these facts plus the war in Iraq couldve even INCREASED terrorism and made the world LESS safe too and if Bush next pre-emptively invades Iran as a first resort then we're right back into the middle ages of the crusades all over again except this time around with nukes and hi tech terrorism involved
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:15
Don't flame me for pointing out the obvious. Spam is what spam is. I don't see any general rules against it in this forum, but it does show a certain lack of couth. I made no argument of any other kind. You may remove yourself from your high-horse and apologize now.
thats not an example of spam its an example of a costly link
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:17
Hey i have a solution to this entire thread, if you dont like Kerry (aka hate bush) then vote Kerry. If you like bush, vote bush. And if you can't vote because you don't live in the US or are not a citizen, then stop whining and become one so you can do something about your opinions. The US is the most powerful nation in the world and if you dont like what we're doing then you and all your buddies can go form your own nation and start a big nasty war and settle all our disputes. Or you can support the UN and we'll completely ignore you because Nelson Mandela is not president of the US, George W. Bush is.
the only one who should move out of america is Bush himself-let him go become President of Iraq--I dare him
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:19
"Also, Al Gore is the president of the US, until January"
Sad. You actually beleive that? oh well it dosen't matter, George W. bush was inagurated weather you beleive he won or not. All you " Al Gore is president" people got left in the past. It really is time you got over it.
Al Gore is the moral President in exile of the US--Bush was unethically installed by corrupt elitist Judges
Bozzy
12-09-2004, 01:21
thats not an example of spam its an example of a costly link
LOL!

THAT was the funniest thing I've seen you post!

Even funnier is that I don't think you intended it to be!
(If you did then I stand corrected)

Here's a few more 'costly' links for ya!

http://www.viagra.i-drugs.org/
http://www.penis-enlargement-secrets.com
http://www.easy-traffic.info/make-money-easy.html
http://www.web-cam-man.com/
http://stocktip.zacks.com
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:21
]

No more so than Fox News.
Democracynow is more objective then Foxnews-I seen them go after Democrats as well. Foxnews is just an arm of the RNC
Drenas
12-09-2004, 01:24
"Al Gore is the moral President in exile of the US--Bush was unethically installed by corrupt elitist Judges"

Typical Leftist Rant.
I cant beleive you used Al Gore and moral in the same sentence :rolleyes:
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:25
Why does anyone even bother replying to MKULTRA's threads anyway? If all it does is get you worked up, why bother? It's not like those of us on the left spend all that much time defending him anyway.

<---Hey, I'm not a spamgirl anymore!thats because most of what I post doesnt need a defense ;)
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:27
LOL!

THAT was the funniest thing I've seen you post!

Even funnier is that I don't think you intended it to be!
(If you did then I stand corrected)
I was dead serious :gundge:
Drenas
12-09-2004, 01:27
that's true, things that no one listens to rarely need a defense.
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:29
"Al Gore is the moral President in exile of the US--Bush was unethically installed by corrupt elitist Judges"

Typical Leftist Rant.
I cant beleive you used Al Gore and moral in the same sentence :rolleyes:
you must not have been hearing any of Gores recent speechs
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:34
that's true, things that no one listens to rarely need a defense.
LOL so sayeth the Foxnews drone who hasnt heard an dissenting opinion in his life :D
BackwoodsSquatches
12-09-2004, 01:34
Democracynow is more objective then Foxnews-I seen them go after Democrats as well. Foxnews is just an arm of the RNC


I'd also like to point out that Democracynow makes no claims of being "fair and balanced".
Drenas
12-09-2004, 01:35
no, I haven't
don't tell me he reversed his radical tree hugging
or his pro-abortion stance.
and he can't be against gay marriage, can he?

I wouldn't know, I stopped listening to him years ago.
Drenas
12-09-2004, 01:38
And you somehow magically know that I watch fox news? I don't. And actually I'm surrounded by dissenting opinions, they just never make any sense.
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 01:45
no, I haven't
don't tell me he reversed his radical tree hugging
or his pro-abortion stance.
and he can't be against gay marriage, can he?

I wouldn't know, I stopped listening to him years ago.
1.isnt hugging a tree better then letting special interests clearcut old growth forests and letting mining companies loot our national parks and not compensating taxpayers for it at the same time?
2.Maybe Gore just realizes abortion is a personal medical decision between a woman and her doctor and that he has no right to regulate other peoples sex lives they way conservatives seek to?
3.maybe Gore doesnt oppose gay marriage cause hes not anti-family
Drenas
12-09-2004, 01:56
"1.isnt hugging a tree better then letting special interests clearcut old growth forests and letting mining companies loot our national parks and not compensating taxpayers for it at the same time?
2.Maybe Gore just realizes abortion is a personal medical decision between a woman and her doctor and that he has no right to regulate other peoples sex lives they way conservatives seek to?
3.maybe Gore doesnt oppose gay marriage cause hes not anti-family"

1: Who does that?
2: Despite whatever " It's my body" crap you wan't to throw around Abortion is murder. and eventually popular society is going to pay for its blatent disregard for human life.
3: leave out the word "not" and then you would have it about right
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 02:06
"1.isnt hugging a tree better then letting special interests clearcut old growth forests and letting mining companies loot our national parks and not compensating taxpayers for it at the same time?
2.Maybe Gore just realizes abortion is a personal medical decision between a woman and her doctor and that he has no right to regulate other peoples sex lives they way conservatives seek to?
3.maybe Gore doesnt oppose gay marriage cause hes not anti-family"

1: Who does that?
2: Despite whatever " It's my body" crap you wan't to throw around Abortion is murder. and eventually popular society is going to pay for its blatent disregard for human life.
3: leave out the word "not" and then you would have it about right
1.republicans sell our national parks to special interests Mining rights etc, plus republicans support clear cutting of old growth forests for timber companies,in short the GOP stands for big business being able to do whatever they want with no accountability at all
2.abortion may or may not be murder but if you think it is then you should at least support RU486 which is a morning after pill--that would reduce the incidence of women needing to get an abortion clinically-but conservatives dont even want that (or any kind of birth control at all) cause what they REALLY oppose more then abortion itself is that people are having sex outside of marriage
3.You cant oppose gay marriage and say your "pro family" cause by opposing gay marriage your acten to break families up
Drenas
12-09-2004, 02:06
I have to go now, and since I assume your reply will be a variation of " your wrong" I'll answer it now: I usually don't talk so blatently like " Abortion is murder" I would normally say " I beleive abortion is murder" but you have royally pissed me off with the way you make "my opinion is fact and you should be able to see that or your an idiot" statements like
"abortion is a personal medical decision between a woman and her doctor"
so I have responded in kind. goodnight :headbang:
MKULTRA
12-09-2004, 02:13
I have to go now, and since I assume your reply will be a variation of " your wrong" I'll answer it now: I usually don't talk so blatently like " Abortion is murder" I would normally say " I beleive abortion is murder" but you have royally pissed me off with the way you make "my opinion is fact and you should be able to see that or your an idiot" statements like
"abortion is a personal medical decision between a woman and her doctor"
so I have responded in kind. goodnight :headbang:
well I do think your opinions are wrong but I mean that as no insult .How else would I know if I was right if there was no such thing as a rightwinger? Have a good weekend, it was fun disagreeing :)
Eldarana
12-09-2004, 02:52
Spare us the ultra left-wing bull crap
Globes R Us
12-09-2004, 02:57
no, I haven't
don't tell me he reversed his radical tree hugging
or his pro-abortion stance.
and he can't be against gay marriage, can he?

I wouldn't know, I stopped listening to him years ago.

You can't really have an opinion on him then, can you.
Chess Squares
12-09-2004, 03:00
Spare us the ultra left-wing bull crap
spare us the narrow minded right wing dribble