Well looky what we now know:
"Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:
Use of 20-hour interrogations.
Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.
Removal of clothing.
Using detainees' ``individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress.''
Do these "individual phobias" include the fear of having another man rape you?
No, really folks. As sad as that is, that IS the question we now have to ask.
June 22, 2004
June 20, 2004
9-11 commission: Iraq and Al-Qaeda??
Iraqi Officer Tied to Al Qaeda - 9/11 Commissioner
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040620/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc
Sun Jun 20, 4:17 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s militia, a panel member said on Sunday.
Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq (news - web sites) and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
Things we can learn from this article:
1. Gosh, the Republicans are still lying to us. And they are doing it very well. All they have to do is say Iraq and 9-11 in the same sentence as many times as possible and we fall into a war-hungry hypnosis. "ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America."
That last sentence is all that a lot of people will take away from the article.
2. We also can see from the words "believed responsible" in this article that neither Al-Qa'eda nor Osama Bin Laden have claimed responsibility for 9-11 attacks. In press articles Osama is often referred to as the "alleged" leader of the attackers. There are many explanations of this, but the one I believe in is that this terminoloy is used by the press because the administration has incorrently classified what Al-Qa'eda is. In order to make the enemy seem bigger and scarier than they are, Al-Qa'eda has become a elaborate terrorist network in which people are members of and there is a clear chain of command. This is for the most part is not true. The word Al-Qa'eda means 'pattern' 'formula' 'base' or it is also used as 'foundation' 'pedastal' or a 'precept' 'rule' 'pattern' 'principle' 'maxim' 'formula' 'model' 'pattern'. the word Al-Qa'eda was first used when groups in Afghanistan (funded and trained by the US) were fighting the Soviets. Al-Qa'eda was used to describe either a 'manual' or a way of fighting. By late 1996, when Osama bin Laden went from Sudan to Afghanistan, the word started to evolve to describe isolated cells of violent radical muslims. Although these cells would become more united, they were still very different in each country. To describe Osama at the top of the chain of command, I beleive, would be incorrect. Osama has been more like a major financier.
The principle idea held by followers of the Al-Qa'eda movement is that the muslim world should be at war with the West. Hmm... sounds like their goal was accomplished with our 'War on Terror'. This required the Muslim world to be united, which of course required the fall of the 'Republic' of Iraq, which was created by Britain, and whose leader was put in place by America in the 1980s. Sadam and Osama hated each other. For all we know this Iraqi Lt. Colonel with unconfirmed ties to Al-Qa'eda could have been working to undermine Sadam Hussein. Sadam was a megalomaniac secular dictator who wouldn't share power with Osama, or any other
3. Moreover, the President and Co-President Cheney hate the American people. They despise you. They are rich robber barons who have never had to respect lesser humans in their life. They run America like they run their companies, putting the organization under with their lying and cheating, while they make money for themselves. Their contempt for us can be seen in these two lies:
a. Bush sent out an e-mail to his close supporters saying that the 9-11 commission's report confirmed what Bush had been saying about Al-Qa'eda and Iraq. The report said the exact opposite of Bush's lies, but this administration has no problem personally lying to people who support them.
b. Cheney's big evidence that he had repeated since several weeks after 9-11: "peddling an uncorroborated assertion by one Czech intelligence official that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had been seen five months before meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague. The 9/11 Commission, citing physical and documentary evidence, said the facts indicate Atta was already here by then and had never left." That's right, the administration is still using completely uncorroborated evidence because they have such a contempt for the truth and for the American people. The assertion of the Iraqi lt. colonel with ties to Al-Qa'eda also "still has to be confirmed". Furthermore, was this Iraqi agent an agent of Iraq, or maybe an simply agent who had Iraqi ethnicity?
So the idea of these ties between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda is based on lies told by a known liar whom Richard Pearle was paying $340,000-$422,000 a month to feed us (create) evidence who still couldn't come up with a link, an unconirmed claim that at least one member of Iraq's army had ties to Al-Qa'eda, an unconfirmed claim that Mohamed Atta met with an "Iraqi agent" in 2001, and the claim that an Al-Qa'eda agent received medical care in Baghdad.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040620/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc
Sun Jun 20, 4:17 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s militia, a panel member said on Sunday.
Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq (news - web sites) and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
Things we can learn from this article:
1. Gosh, the Republicans are still lying to us. And they are doing it very well. All they have to do is say Iraq and 9-11 in the same sentence as many times as possible and we fall into a war-hungry hypnosis. "ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America."
That last sentence is all that a lot of people will take away from the article.
2. We also can see from the words "believed responsible" in this article that neither Al-Qa'eda nor Osama Bin Laden have claimed responsibility for 9-11 attacks. In press articles Osama is often referred to as the "alleged" leader of the attackers. There are many explanations of this, but the one I believe in is that this terminoloy is used by the press because the administration has incorrently classified what Al-Qa'eda is. In order to make the enemy seem bigger and scarier than they are, Al-Qa'eda has become a elaborate terrorist network in which people are members of and there is a clear chain of command. This is for the most part is not true. The word Al-Qa'eda means 'pattern' 'formula' 'base' or it is also used as 'foundation' 'pedastal' or a 'precept' 'rule' 'pattern' 'principle' 'maxim' 'formula' 'model' 'pattern'. the word Al-Qa'eda was first used when groups in Afghanistan (funded and trained by the US) were fighting the Soviets. Al-Qa'eda was used to describe either a 'manual' or a way of fighting. By late 1996, when Osama bin Laden went from Sudan to Afghanistan, the word started to evolve to describe isolated cells of violent radical muslims. Although these cells would become more united, they were still very different in each country. To describe Osama at the top of the chain of command, I beleive, would be incorrect. Osama has been more like a major financier.
The principle idea held by followers of the Al-Qa'eda movement is that the muslim world should be at war with the West. Hmm... sounds like their goal was accomplished with our 'War on Terror'. This required the Muslim world to be united, which of course required the fall of the 'Republic' of Iraq, which was created by Britain, and whose leader was put in place by America in the 1980s. Sadam and Osama hated each other. For all we know this Iraqi Lt. Colonel with unconfirmed ties to Al-Qa'eda could have been working to undermine Sadam Hussein. Sadam was a megalomaniac secular dictator who wouldn't share power with Osama, or any other
3. Moreover, the President and Co-President Cheney hate the American people. They despise you. They are rich robber barons who have never had to respect lesser humans in their life. They run America like they run their companies, putting the organization under with their lying and cheating, while they make money for themselves. Their contempt for us can be seen in these two lies:
a. Bush sent out an e-mail to his close supporters saying that the 9-11 commission's report confirmed what Bush had been saying about Al-Qa'eda and Iraq. The report said the exact opposite of Bush's lies, but this administration has no problem personally lying to people who support them.
b. Cheney's big evidence that he had repeated since several weeks after 9-11: "peddling an uncorroborated assertion by one Czech intelligence official that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had been seen five months before meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague. The 9/11 Commission, citing physical and documentary evidence, said the facts indicate Atta was already here by then and had never left." That's right, the administration is still using completely uncorroborated evidence because they have such a contempt for the truth and for the American people. The assertion of the Iraqi lt. colonel with ties to Al-Qa'eda also "still has to be confirmed". Furthermore, was this Iraqi agent an agent of Iraq, or maybe an simply agent who had Iraqi ethnicity?
So the idea of these ties between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda is based on lies told by a known liar whom Richard Pearle was paying $340,000-$422,000 a month to feed us (create) evidence who still couldn't come up with a link, an unconirmed claim that at least one member of Iraq's army had ties to Al-Qa'eda, an unconfirmed claim that Mohamed Atta met with an "Iraqi agent" in 2001, and the claim that an Al-Qa'eda agent received medical care in Baghdad.
June 17, 2004
More on Health Care
I'm now 19 and I've been working since I was 14 years old. My dad has a doctorate and has always worked fulltime. My mom has a masters, has stayed at home, worked full time, worked two jobs and now works 36 hours a week. For the vast majority of my life my brother my sister and I have had no health insurance. There was a period when my mother was able to get insurance from the state, which covered me and looked like a good plan.
With state insurance I went to my doctor that I had gone to since I was little and my parents had paid cash with. My long-time doctor's clinic didn't accept the state insurance. So I decided to pay cash like we always had. But after they knew I was insured, even though they couldn't accept my card, they couldn't see me as a cash patient.
So there I was sick, with plenty of cash in my pocket since I've always worked hard, and a medical card, but unable to see my long-time doctor. Something is seriously, seriously wrong in America when both medical insurance and cash are no good, and sick people aren't able to get treatment.
Most politicians and media elites don't address or repond to this issue, they can't understand the issue unless they feel this issue as I have felt it. To me, Howard Dean is the truest of heros for standing up and fighting for quality preventative health care in America.
Here is Dean's most recent address at democracyforamerica.com
A Moral Crisis
by Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.
It is more important that we do this in 2004 than perhaps ever before. In this election year, the crisis of health care costs is front and center as perhaps never before. Health care costs for workers have gone up by 50% since George Bush took office. In fact, costs are up four times the rate of inflation. Middle class families are paying more than they can bear and it's no surprise that nearly four million more Americans have become uninsured while George Bush has been in the White House.
President Bush hasn't lifted a finger to hold down soaring health care costs to help more families afford health insurance and help the families that already have health insurance but are struggling to pay the bills. Instead, he's done the bidding of the big prescription drug companies and HMOs that benefit from rising costs. The cost of the top 10 most used prescription drugs have gone up about nine percent over the last year alone.
I'm supporting John Kerry for President because he has a real and realistic plan to hold down costs and cover the uninsured without raising taxes on the middle class or putting in place a big government bureaucracy. He would let everyday Americans buy into the same great health care plan that the President and Members of Congress get - and he'd help working families and small business owners afford the costs. And his plan has been praised for using carrots and sticks to really hold down runaway health care costs.
How can we, the richest country on this earth, continue to do nothing while 44 million Americans live without health coverage? In this election, we have a chance to fix that. The millions of families without health insurance - the millions more that have coverage but are killing themselves to pay the bills - are looking for new leadership that will make that happen. Those are the stakes.
I believe John Kerry's plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When I graduated from medical school, I took an oath in which I pledged to practice my profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients my first consideration. I still believe in that oath. And that's why I believe John Kerry is the clear choice to be our next President.
With state insurance I went to my doctor that I had gone to since I was little and my parents had paid cash with. My long-time doctor's clinic didn't accept the state insurance. So I decided to pay cash like we always had. But after they knew I was insured, even though they couldn't accept my card, they couldn't see me as a cash patient.
So there I was sick, with plenty of cash in my pocket since I've always worked hard, and a medical card, but unable to see my long-time doctor. Something is seriously, seriously wrong in America when both medical insurance and cash are no good, and sick people aren't able to get treatment.
Most politicians and media elites don't address or repond to this issue, they can't understand the issue unless they feel this issue as I have felt it. To me, Howard Dean is the truest of heros for standing up and fighting for quality preventative health care in America.
Here is Dean's most recent address at democracyforamerica.com
A Moral Crisis
by Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.
It is more important that we do this in 2004 than perhaps ever before. In this election year, the crisis of health care costs is front and center as perhaps never before. Health care costs for workers have gone up by 50% since George Bush took office. In fact, costs are up four times the rate of inflation. Middle class families are paying more than they can bear and it's no surprise that nearly four million more Americans have become uninsured while George Bush has been in the White House.
President Bush hasn't lifted a finger to hold down soaring health care costs to help more families afford health insurance and help the families that already have health insurance but are struggling to pay the bills. Instead, he's done the bidding of the big prescription drug companies and HMOs that benefit from rising costs. The cost of the top 10 most used prescription drugs have gone up about nine percent over the last year alone.
I'm supporting John Kerry for President because he has a real and realistic plan to hold down costs and cover the uninsured without raising taxes on the middle class or putting in place a big government bureaucracy. He would let everyday Americans buy into the same great health care plan that the President and Members of Congress get - and he'd help working families and small business owners afford the costs. And his plan has been praised for using carrots and sticks to really hold down runaway health care costs.
How can we, the richest country on this earth, continue to do nothing while 44 million Americans live without health coverage? In this election, we have a chance to fix that. The millions of families without health insurance - the millions more that have coverage but are killing themselves to pay the bills - are looking for new leadership that will make that happen. Those are the stakes.
I believe John Kerry's plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When I graduated from medical school, I took an oath in which I pledged to practice my profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients my first consideration. I still believe in that oath. And that's why I believe John Kerry is the clear choice to be our next President.
War for business interests?
I read a review for Farenheit 9/11 from USAtoday by Walter Shapiro entitled "Moore's movie loses its point in a barrage of cheap shots"
Excerpt from this review:
"Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?"
My response:
Uh, yeah. Business leaders do, and people who know whats going on beleive that. It's rather well established for better or worse the war in Afghanistan was to build our pipeline. We tried working with the Taliban and at one point we got the go ahead, but two months before 9-11 we realized that he Taliban was untable. We had war plans for Afghanistan before 9-11, that's how we were able to mobilize so quickly. And remember Bush said twice he was no longer concerned with Osama Bin Laden. The pipeline was the key objective.
Read the Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostratic Imperatives' from 1997 that very logically informs us that 60% of the world's GNP, 75% of it's population, and 75% of the world's known energy sources is in Eurasia. Hence, our focus needs to be there. This plan was followed by Clinton and Bush.
This isn't exactly complicated stuff that people in power aren't well aware of. Nobody wants to pay $7.93 a gallon like Britian is paying right now.
Well, I'm guessing none of you ran and researched The Grand Chessboard Yet, so I'll give you an excerpt. Since Russia, Turkey, Iran and China all want a peice of these resources, Brzezinski informs us that "America's primary interests is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control this geopolitical space [Central Asia, I.E. the "Stans"] and that the gobal community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."
Union Oil of California proposed a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and the Indian port of Karachi. We tried to work this out with the Taliban, but they were obviously too chaotic. Now, with Unocal employees as the American envoy and the president of the newly born democracy.
The Guardian on Sept 26th, 2001 tells us that in July of 2001 a group of interested parties met to listen to former US State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on the message that "the US was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action". On Sept 22, 2001 The Guardian tells us that "Osama bin Laden received threats of possible American militray strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington."
On Sept 9, 2001 Bush was presented with a National Security Presidential Directive outlining a global campaign of militray, diplomatic and intelligence action targetting al-Qa'eda. According to NBC news, President Bush was scheduled so sign this directive but "did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks." NBC news gos on to explain that "The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly... because it simply had to pull the plans 'off the shelf'"
Brzezinski foretold "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" would be needed to set in front of the American people in order for the standard maufacturing of domestic consent. PNAC also foretold that a "massive Pearl Harbor like attack" would be needed to carry out our strategy in the Middle East.
Faithfully,
Rob
Excerpt from this review:
"Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?"
My response:
Uh, yeah. Business leaders do, and people who know whats going on beleive that. It's rather well established for better or worse the war in Afghanistan was to build our pipeline. We tried working with the Taliban and at one point we got the go ahead, but two months before 9-11 we realized that he Taliban was untable. We had war plans for Afghanistan before 9-11, that's how we were able to mobilize so quickly. And remember Bush said twice he was no longer concerned with Osama Bin Laden. The pipeline was the key objective.
Read the Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostratic Imperatives' from 1997 that very logically informs us that 60% of the world's GNP, 75% of it's population, and 75% of the world's known energy sources is in Eurasia. Hence, our focus needs to be there. This plan was followed by Clinton and Bush.
This isn't exactly complicated stuff that people in power aren't well aware of. Nobody wants to pay $7.93 a gallon like Britian is paying right now.
Well, I'm guessing none of you ran and researched The Grand Chessboard Yet, so I'll give you an excerpt. Since Russia, Turkey, Iran and China all want a peice of these resources, Brzezinski informs us that "America's primary interests is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control this geopolitical space [Central Asia, I.E. the "Stans"] and that the gobal community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."
Union Oil of California proposed a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and the Indian port of Karachi. We tried to work this out with the Taliban, but they were obviously too chaotic. Now, with Unocal employees as the American envoy and the president of the newly born democracy.
The Guardian on Sept 26th, 2001 tells us that in July of 2001 a group of interested parties met to listen to former US State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on the message that "the US was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action". On Sept 22, 2001 The Guardian tells us that "Osama bin Laden received threats of possible American militray strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington."
On Sept 9, 2001 Bush was presented with a National Security Presidential Directive outlining a global campaign of militray, diplomatic and intelligence action targetting al-Qa'eda. According to NBC news, President Bush was scheduled so sign this directive but "did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks." NBC news gos on to explain that "The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly... because it simply had to pull the plans 'off the shelf'"
Brzezinski foretold "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" would be needed to set in front of the American people in order for the standard maufacturing of domestic consent. PNAC also foretold that a "massive Pearl Harbor like attack" would be needed to carry out our strategy in the Middle East.
Faithfully,
Rob
Liberty
Since enlightenment thinkers opened their minds to new ideas for how to organize society, and great philosophers like Emmanuel Kant called for the a society the allows for the most freedom possible, many enlightenment thinking (also known as "liberal" in theri time) have spoke on Liberty and Freedom. Here are a few worthy quotes on the subject:
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now we bleat like sheep for security."
- Norman Vincent Peale
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liverby nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable." - Theodore Roosevelt
"America will never be destroyes from the ouside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we desrtoyes ourselves." - Abrahan Lincoln
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now we bleat like sheep for security."
- Norman Vincent Peale
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liverby nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable." - Theodore Roosevelt
"America will never be destroyes from the ouside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we desrtoyes ourselves." - Abrahan Lincoln
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Would the real Alpha Male please stand up?
Kerry Stategy: be the manliest candidate we've ever seen. In a media world that casts aggressive males in powerful, righteous positions, Kerry is trying to be and will continue to try to be the manliest mofo around. As seen from his agggressive rhetoric and his goal to make America "safer, stronger and more secure". Gee, strength a security, posing with vets, emphasis of his heroic war record, he sure is no Dukakis. According to the Washington Post even in the primaries Kerry's strategy had been to tout his alpha male status, and it worked.
The lead article in the January's The Nation, discussed Dean's strategy of "butching up for victory" with his puffed out chest and aggressive rhetoric as the correct strategy for the democrats.
Kerry has been snowbaording, riding a Harley and best of all hunting doves. Kerry's stature of 6'4" has also helped him establish his alpha male status. But Kerry may not be able to compete with Bush's alpha male status. Bush has spent the last for years beefing up his image. Bush has been sure to include constant media injection of testoseroine, and Bush has given most of his speeches and press conferences outside (such as his national forests proposal) in order to be the "one with the sun in his face," as Chirs Mathews would say. Bush Sr. and especially Jr. were smart to shed their northern Ivy-League boy image in exchange for a rugged Texas cowboy motif. Not to mention Bush's flight suit shots with his bulging (stuffed?) flight pants.
Unlike Gore's campaign, Bush and Kerry's teams have both been on top of the alpha male theme from the get-go. Watch their dress, mannerisms and rhetoric throughout the campiagn to see who wins the alpha male race.
We're left with the question, Will Kerry's alpha male status serve him best with an aggressive male VP or a female VP? I'm pulling for one of my absolute favorite politicians, Kathleen Sebelius as VP. But I predict a 30% chance of her getting picked.
The lead article in the January's The Nation, discussed Dean's strategy of "butching up for victory" with his puffed out chest and aggressive rhetoric as the correct strategy for the democrats.
Kerry has been snowbaording, riding a Harley and best of all hunting doves. Kerry's stature of 6'4" has also helped him establish his alpha male status. But Kerry may not be able to compete with Bush's alpha male status. Bush has spent the last for years beefing up his image. Bush has been sure to include constant media injection of testoseroine, and Bush has given most of his speeches and press conferences outside (such as his national forests proposal) in order to be the "one with the sun in his face," as Chirs Mathews would say. Bush Sr. and especially Jr. were smart to shed their northern Ivy-League boy image in exchange for a rugged Texas cowboy motif. Not to mention Bush's flight suit shots with his bulging (stuffed?) flight pants.
Unlike Gore's campaign, Bush and Kerry's teams have both been on top of the alpha male theme from the get-go. Watch their dress, mannerisms and rhetoric throughout the campiagn to see who wins the alpha male race.
We're left with the question, Will Kerry's alpha male status serve him best with an aggressive male VP or a female VP? I'm pulling for one of my absolute favorite politicians, Kathleen Sebelius as VP. But I predict a 30% chance of her getting picked.
June 16, 2004
Quote from primary race
This is something I wrote down when Dean was the front runner (Joe Trippi was his campaign manager).
"Jow Trippi may only be half the an that Karl Rove is, which says a lot, but Dean is twice the man that Bush is, which is not saying a lot." --Rob
"Jow Trippi may only be half the an that Karl Rove is, which says a lot, but Dean is twice the man that Bush is, which is not saying a lot." --Rob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
