Time For A Reality Check

[tieguy]

So how does news from 1981 relate to the reality tody?

Very relevant. In 1981 you would have been saying there was no secret nuclear program in Iraq. In 1991 proof of its existence was found by UN inspectors. Very relevant.

Remember Suzie congress has its own intelligence sources not filtered by the President and came to the same conclusions as the president. This fact you cannot deny. If you can't deny it then you have to agree that the reasons for going into Iraq must have been compelling enough to get the president and congress to agree.

 

[susiedriver]

Very relevant. In 1981 you would have been saying there was no secret nuclear program in Iraq. In 1991 proof of its existence was found by UN inspectors. Very relevant.

Remember Suzie congress has its own intelligence sources not filtered by the President and came to the same conclusions as the president. This fact you cannot deny. If you can't deny it then you have to agree that the reasons for going into Iraq must have been compelling enough to get the president and congress to agree.

Lies and more lies. Iraq was left with next to nothing after Gulf War I. What was left was destroyed over the next decade. Please let the world know who the legislative body of the US government uses for intel that is separate from that filtered through the executive branch. Why is the FBI investigating the Niger forgeries? Why does Colin Powell say that his deceitful speech to the UN was the low point of his career?

 

[tieguy]

Lies and more lies. Iraq was left with next to nothing after Gulf War I. What was left was destroyed over the next decade. Please let the world know who the legislative body of the US government uses for intel that is separate from that filtered through the executive branch.

Suzie what is it you don't understand about this issue. Do you not understand how intelligence gathering and distribution works? Probably. Suzie congress has its own access to Intelligence collected by the various intelligence agencies. In order for the president to dupe congress they would have to rely on the president for all their intelligence. Since Congress has their own access to all the intelligence provided by the various agencies the president did not have the means to filter and edit intelligence fed to them. Congress collected the same intelligence being fed by the various intelligence agencies and came to the same conclusion as the president. The evidence therefore was compelling enough for both the president, congress (including your pinko liberal friends ) and other countries to agree on the same outcome.

 

[ok2bclever]

I am not missing the fact.

I just disagree with your attempt to negate that bush pulled a fast one to get what he wanted, the invasion of Iraq.

Fact: The intelligence used by the bush team to convince congress that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the immediate invasion was filtered and carefully orchestrated by the bush team.

The rest is smokescreen.

The reason I don't have a problem with anyone saying bush lied is because he did.

I also resent that bush dropped the ball on terrorism.

That bush is engaging most of our armed forces in a unwinnable occupation that is encouraging and recruiting terrorism.

That bush turned world opinion that was solidly on our side after 911, massively against us, losing significant cooperation in attacking terrorism world wide.

That bush has stolen the future of our children both in lives of some of our best and brightest over in Iraq and with record national deficits.

Frankly, his decisions have damaged this country far more than his lie, but it doesn't change that he and his team purposefully deceived congress and the American people to obtain his goal of invading Iraq.

I see the members of the official 911 commission has given mostly "friend" grades to what the government has done so far regarding national security and protecting us from another terror attack on the United States since their recommendations over a year ago.

bush is too busy with his country building by invasion plan to pay for anything else, despite creating record national deficits.

 

[tieguy]

A War We Are Winning
by Austin Bay
March 22, 2005

Discussion Board on this On Point topic

It was a very early morning in July 2004, and after making myself a steamer-sized cup of hot tea at my desk in Corps Plans, I walked into the coalition military's Joint Operations Center (JOC) in Al Faw Palace, Baghdad.
Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had left Baghdad a couple of weeks earlier, and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's interim Iraqi government was --as the bad pun went -- an interim rocky government. But Allawi's government not only had popular support, it had spine. Day by day, Allawi emerged as a smart, adaptive and courageous leader. The Allawi government was rapidly building a democratic Iraqi future.
I took a seat in the back of the JOC's eight-tiered ampitheater. A huge plasma screen draped the JOC's front wall, like a movie theater screen divided into ceiling-high panels capable of displaying multiple computer projections. A viewer could visually hopscotch from news to weather to war. In the upper right-hand corner of one panel, Fox News flickered silently -- and for the record, occasionally CNN or Al Jazeera would flicker there, as well. Beneath Fox ran my favorite channel, live imagery from a Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle circling somewhere over Iraq.
The biggest display, that morning and every morning, was a spooling date-time list describing scores of military and police actions undertaken over the last dozen hours, The succinct, acronym-packed reports flowed like haikus of violence: "0331: 1/5 Cav, 1st Cavalry Division, arrests suspects after Iraqi police stop car"; "0335 USMC vicinity Fallujah engaged by RPG, returned fire. No casualties."
The spool spun on and on, and I remember thinking: "I know we're winning. We're winning because -- in the big picture -- all the opposition (Saddam's thugs and Zarqawi's Al Qaeda) has to offer is the tyranny of the past. But the drop-by-drop police blotter perspective obscures that."
Collect relatively isolated events in a chronological list and presto: the impression of uninterrupted, widespread violence destroying Iraq. But that was a false impression. Every day, coalition forces were moving thousands of 18-wheelers from Kuwait and Turkey into Iraq, and if the "insurgents" were lucky they blew up one. However, flash the flames of that one rig on CNN and, "Oh my God, America can't stop these guys," is the impression left in Boise and Beijing.
Saddam's thugs and Zarqawi's klan were actually weak enemies -- "brittle" is the word I used to describe them at a senior planning meeting. Their local power was based on intimidation -- killing by car bomb, murdering in the street. Their strategic power was based solely on selling the false impression of nationwide quagmire -- selling post-Saddam Iraq as a dysfunctional failed-state, rather than an emerging democracy .
Only July 19, I attended a meeting in Najaf where the governors of Najaf and Diwaniya told the corps commander that they needed clean water and better sewer systems. Citizens in the city of Najaf wanted Marines in the area to start spending money. As I said, we were winning.
Were there severe security issues? Absolutely -- in August Najaf was the scene of a most curious battle. The Mahdi militia took over the Imam Ali Mosque -- but were slowly chewed to bits by U.S. troops and forced to leave the mosque by the political efforts of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the local populace.
In World War II, destroying Nazi divisions and taking islands from the Japanese provided hard yardsticks to gauge military success. Irregular warfare rarely offers such a clarifying quantitative measure. Over the summer of 2004, I had the benefit of anecdotal measures. Iraqis I talked to would tell me they intended to vote in the January elections.
The elections would be "the big island," the defining moment in the post-Saddam political struggle, and it would be the Iraqi people providing the public yardstick.
That's precisely what happened. The Jan. 30 election provided the broad and deep perspective the police blotter obscures: This is a war of liberty against tyranny, and it's a war we are winning.

 

[tieguy]

Years of neglect under Saddam Husseins regime, which has been aggravated by looters since the liberation of the country, has left Iraq with a devastated infrastructure.
Since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, USAIDs reconstruction efforts in Iraq have focused on rebuilding key infrastructurea critical step in improving the lives of Iraqis. USAID has established projects to improve ports, repair bridges, provide electricity, and rebuild airports throughout the country.


On behalf of the American people, USAID:

• Upgraded warehouses, silos, and other facilities, and is re-employing over 3,500 workers at Umm Qasr, Iraqis main port.
• Continues to dredge the port, including Berth 10 that has been dredged to a depth of 11 meters, and to remove unexploded ordnance and other sunken obstacles. By early June, the channel was deep enough to allow ships carrying 15,000 metric tons of food to unload.
• Will upgrade airports at Al Basrah and Baghdad to international standards by mid-summer.
• Is providing Al Basrah with electricity 24 hours a day for the first time in more than a decade.
• Continues to repair high voltage transmission lines in central Iraq, where shortages still occur.
• Purchased chlorine for 100 days of water treatment in the southern governates of al Muthanna, Al Basrah, Dhi Qar, and Maysan, which will reduce high rates of death and illness, especially among children.
• In the An Najaf Governate, is improving rural water systems.
• Is restoring bridges at Ar Rutbah, Ar Ramadi, Mosul, and southeast of Baghdad, and continues to coordinate with the Iraqi Ministry of Public Works to prioritize the repair of 36 other bridges.

 

[tieguy]

Gibbons wants Iraq success stories emphasized
He joins other GOP lawmakers in trying to 'focus on the positive'
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU </B>
http://www.reviewjournal.com/about/print/rjstaff.html#City Desk

WASHINGTON -- Seeking to polish the Bush administration's message on Iraq, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and other Republicans said Wednesday that the American public is not being told enough about good things taking place in the U.S.-occupied nation.
Gibbons and other GOP lawmakers who traveled to Iraq this summer are being enlisted by House leaders to highlight progress in post-war Iraq and counter criticism dogging the president.
Republicans say terrorist bombings, continued U.S. service personnel deaths and other setbacks have been seized upon by President Bush's critics and magnified by the news media.
Meanwhile, they said, few are being told of peaceful conditions throughout swaths of the nation, of "bad guys" being rounded up by coalition forces, of Iraqi police growing more competent or of the reopening of the zoo and symphony in Baghdad.
"To say there is failure and chaos and everything bad is happening there is completely untrue," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said at a news conference organized by Republican leaders.
Rogers said after he returned from Iraq two weeks ago and saw media portrayals, "I wondered whether that was the country I just left."
House Republicans who are worried about losing the "message war" on Iraq decided to step up after expressing frustration that the White House has not promoted U.S. achievements aggressively.
"Tales of a liberated nation getting back on its feet are buried under footage of bombings and Democratic criticism," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio.
Gibbons said he shared the frustration.
"It's a point that people out there want to bring down the success by focusing on the negative," he said. "We want to focus on the positive to ensure this success. If we don't succeed in Iraq, we will have this fight in our back yard."
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., conceded that the Bush administration might have failed to "manage expectations" of a speedy recovery for Iraq.
"We had a very successful conventional war, and we're pretty good at that," he said. "What we're not as good at is basically occupying a country that is in shambles and has no government at all. You're going to make mistakes."
Davis told of viewing mass graves near Babylon, evidence of Saddam Hussein's brutality. Rep. Chris Chocula, R-Ind., said he saw thriving wheat fields at Mosul. Rep. Edward Schrock, R-Va., said Iraqis are urging U.S. soldiers not to "cut and run."

 

[dannyboy]

Lies lies, terrible lies! He's lying and making all this stuff up! Cant be true at all. We are loosing the war, the terrorist are winning.

wahwahwah
There, I beat susie and OK to the punch.

d

 

[ok2bclever]

You need to take a chill pill danny.

The war has already been loosed, but then you probably meant losing.

Despite being one of the big guns in the area (Middle East), Iraq is still a third rate wannabee going up against the US of A in a war, so of course we one that.

It's winning occupation that is what is in doubt and at what cost in American lives and taxpayer money.

I would be ecstatic if this all ultimately turns out happily ever after and proves to have been worth the cost in American lives and taxpayer money, even with bush getting the nod of invading by deception.

Interesting articles tie.

 

[dannyboy]

so of course we one that.

Nah, you need it worse. You mean won?

even with bush getting the nod of invading by deception

As I said, defending against an untrue statements lends credibility to that statement. As my posts have shown, bush did not lie, just repeated what had been told to him. While some of the intel was good, other parts were faulty. So your insistence that bush lied is invalid.

d

 

[dannyboy]

When a person has a history of lying over and over, one tends to mistrust everything that person says

"get the stock above $80, I'll cash out and never be seen again on this board"

A final note to .5, I said immediately after my remark about leaving at $80:
Also I would be gone at $80 if you hadn't ticked me off, but I'll make you a deal...$90 and I'm gone, no changies.

When a person has a history of lying over and over, one tends to mistrust everything that person says

A gal is allowed to change her mind once, isnt she?

Guess he thinks most are too stupid to realize the original poster didn't actually say what he wants everyone to think they said.

When a person has a history of lying over and over, one tends to mistrust everything that person says

What can I add to the statements above. Lead on!

d

 

[ok2bclever]

Your posts just show that you love bush, hate susie, despise me, don't like robo and think you are a master debater.

I didn't see anything you said that proved bush did not lie.

As he and his team did deceive congress and the American people that is not surprising.

 

[susiedriver]

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

State of the Union Address 1/28/2003​

Not True​

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.

State of the Union Address 1/28/2003​

Not True​

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapons munition has been found anywhere in Iraq


We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address 1/28/2003​

Not True​

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq


"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address 1/28/2003​

Not True​

Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)


"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address 1/28/2003​

Not True​

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.


"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation 10/7/2002​

Not True​

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
IAEA report to UN Security Council 1/27/2003


"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address 1/28/2003​

Not True​

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.


"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney Meet the Press 3/16/2003​

Not True​

The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council 3/7/2003


"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003​

Not True​

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

 

[dannyboy]

I dont hate Susie, she says the glass is always half empty (the negative view) I prefer to see it as half full. We actually see things a lot closer than you think, just differing view points. Also my support early on to not ban her would, in most logical minds, also not support the hate you claim.

I also dont despise you, OK, just your methods of attack. Just because I happen to agree with Tie on a few issues does not mean we need to get a room. As for sniping, you are better at that. With me its what you see is what you get. Two sides will always find ground in the middle to agree on. We just think that the middle ground is different areas is all.

As for disproving a negative, you of all people ought to know that is not possible. That is why in our country, a person is Innocent and guilt must be proven. So far all you have done is post your thoughts. And you are entitled to them. But it does not prove your position.

As to Robo, hell I disagree with some and agree with others. I dont know the guy, so how can I dislike someone I dont know? But posting a link to a couple of college students that say that our government blew up the towers, and had them rigged on the day the planes flew in? Really? And that contributed what to the conversation?

And in the great scheme of things will me liking him ever change anything?

Susie, you posted things that bush said, then posted your thoughts as to why he lied. On several, I have posted news articles contradicting your stand, some as recent as yesterday. Others are contradicted by your own response. Please post your sources that prove he is lying.

d

 

[tieguy]

Heres a great link from one of the most comprehensive posts I have seen on all the mass graves in Iraq. Including some disturbing information that many of our MIA's from Persian gulf one may have ended up in those graves.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110805181535/http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf

 

[tieguy]

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

Should we care about mass murders committed without weapons of mass destruction?

Mary Mostert
June 13, 2003


On C-Span Sunday night I watched Britains Prime Minister Tony Blair field one hostile question after another from the party out of power, the Conservatives, over accusations that intelligence documents on Iraq's weapons were changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for military action.

We have the same accusations taking place in Washington, of course, by the party out of power, the Democrats. As Baltimore Sun writers Mark Matthews and Tom Bowman put it America's failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has undercut the Bush administration's justification for war and dealt a blow to its policy of pre-emptive military action against global threats, according to former officials and analysts.

For the record, lets look back at President Bush's own words about his justification for war, not what Matthews and Bowman said it was. In January 2003, President Bush gave the following reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein:

• Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.
  
  Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.
  
  The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
  • 26,000 liters of anthrax enough to kill several million people 38,000 liters of botulilum toxin 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

Of course, those materials are STILL unaccounted for. Other issues involved in the Presidents decision to DO something included:

• From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
  
  The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.
  
  Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.
  Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
  
  Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.
  
  Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.
  
  Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

As for these last items on the list, Saddam Hussein is no longer ordering scientists and their families killed who cooperate with the UN, U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N. are no longer needed, thousands of Iraqi personnel are no longer hiding documents and materials (although they appear to have completed that work before American and British troops entered Iraq), Iraqi officials no longer accompany inspectors to intimidate witnesses, and American troops, with the help of Iraqi informants, have already located two of the mobile biological weapons labs, and thousands of bodies buried in mass graves of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein have been found.

Ann Clwyd, a British member of Parliament who has been traveling in Iraq lately, perhaps said it best, I find it exasperating when I stand at the edge of a mass grave containing 10,000 bodies and people say: Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Four years ago, when Bill Clinton ordered 79 days of bombing in Kosovo and Serbia, it was not because he believed Slobodan Milosevic had weapons of mass destruction. Although at the time we were told Milosevic had killed up to 100,000 Albanians, hundreds of forensic experts found fewer than 2000 bodies, many of whom were Serbs, not Albanians. Yet, Milosevic is in prison and on trial for his life at The Hague from an indictment involving the death of 563 Albanians, some of whom were probably terrorists.

Where are all the Conservatives in Britain and Democrats in the United States who were so eager to bomb the Serbs back to the Stone Age over real or imagined atrocities? The Serbs, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Hutus in Africa and Adolph Hitler in mid-20th century Europe never had weapons of mass destruction but managed to kill millions of people the old-fashioned way.

Why were they not concerned about documented atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein? And, after George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to take action, why are not even worth mentioning in their hysterical attacks on the government in power?

Could this be just plain old politics?

 

[tieguy]

"Someone who was there"

In May 1991, having served in the Persian Gulf War with the Marines, I volunteered for further duty in Provide Comfort -- a joint military operation designed to assist in the relocation of Kurdish refugees into northern Iraq. Assigned to the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, I was flown to the city of Zakho, where the unit was establishing its headquarters in and around an abandoned Iraqi divisional headquarters building....
"As the Marines began digging defensive positions and putting up tents, a grisly discovery was made. Heavy equipment had unearthed myriad body parts; hands, arms, legs, etc., were uncovered in what was determined to have been a mass grave. Most telling among this evidence of inhumanity was an infant's sandal.
"The body parts were reburied immediately after their discovery, but for many days the stench of rotting flesh lingered in the air until all the remains were located and reburied. It was later learned from the Kurds that about 70 of their tribesmen had been taken into this Iraqi divisional HQ and that none had come out alive. The victims were brutally tortured and executed, their remains then thrown into a common grave."
-- James Zumwalt, op-ed in The Washington Post, April 30, 2003

 

[tieguy]

How about a little bio on Saddaam:

Saddam Hussein - page 1

Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

 

[tieguy]

Not True Zero Chemical Weapons Found




Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003



​

Not True
Zero Munitions Found
​

Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
​

How you can deny this is beyond me?
HALABJA
On March 16th 1988, Iraqi jets bombed the town of Halabja with chemical weapons. At least 5,000 people were killed and 7,000 severely injured. Fourteen years on, thousands are still suffering the affects of the chemical weapons.
The gases used included mustard gas, nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. This was the largest chemical attack on a civilian population ever.
Of all the atrocities committed against the Kurds during the Anfal Campaign, Halabja has come to symbolize the worst of the repression of Iraqi Kurds.
For three days, the town and surrounding districts were unmercifully attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemicals. The chemical weapons were the most destructive of life. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.
Humanitarian and charity clinics in the close by areas are encountered with unthinkable forms of disease and deformity among survivors. Miscarriages and birth defects are also commonplace.
​

 

[susiedriver]

No one thinks Saddam is a good guy, or that he didn't kill thousands, millions if you count the Iraq/Iran War. Remember we supported him in that war and gave him the means for those chemical weapons he used.

Our reason to go to war, given by our leaders was not that he committed atrocities in the past, but that he posed an imminent threat to America. That is simply not the case.

Tie, posting right-wing syndicated columnists doesn't prove anything, except your taste in reading.