The President didn’t send me a copy of his speech today, so I haven’t read it. (What? You want me to go look it up? I’m way too lazy for that; just ask Mary.) But Joe Biden was kind enough to send along his response, and one phrase particularly grabbed my imagination.
Among a litany of what he sees as the administration’s faults, he said "five years after 9/11, each member of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ is more
dangerous."
I got to thinking about it, and he’s got a point — about two out of the three, at least.
Well, the likes of Bush and Biden might talk about this stuff, but I’m a man of action. If things haven’t worked out with this Axis of Evil, I say let’s chuck it and get us a new one. The one we’ve got has been ornery and uncooperative, and with the whole world to choose from, I think we can do better. Yes, the current members will likely protest — indeed, Iran and North Korea have put a lot of effort into being evil lately, and they won’t think they deserve to get sent back down — but the country needs an Axis that we can unite behind and feel better about.
Our new Axis should consist of nations that are irritating enough to make the list, but less likely to cause so much trouble. They should be countries that we could take if we had to, but less likely to let things get to that point.
Just to start the ball rolling, I hereby present my Top Five candidates for the New Axis of Evil. Maybe y’all can suggest other likely objects of vilification, or at least help me winnow this one down:
- France. They hate us already, and we don’t much like them. They won’t fight, but if they did we could finish it pretty cleanly. You can trust them — when they surrender, they really mean it. They already have the bomb, but they only use it to get a rise out of Greenpeace. I think we could do business with these guys.
- Argentina. The Brits took Argentina all by themselves, when they were way past their prime. It has a temperate climate. If we need an excuse to invade, we can always claim that they’re still hiding Nazis. If we don’t find any, we can said they sent them to Chile just before we got there. I’ve always felt bad that the U.S. doesn’t pay enough attention to South America, so this would address that problem as well. (Sure, we could go with Venezuela, but Chavez wants in so badly, and I just wouldn’t want to give him the satisfaction.)
- Russia. You might say we’d be biting off a bit much — they are much heavier hitters than any of the current lineup. But think about it: Back when they were a superpower, we stood toe-to-toe for 40-plus years, and it never came to blows (not directly, anyhow). And Putin’s been a real pain lately. Besides, they’ve got oil.
- Switzerland. The whole civilized world has been fighting for a century, and these slackers have sat it out. What makes them so special? I’ve had it with them doing nothing but making cuckoo clocks and sitting on all our money. Sure, their Army has the benefit of some highly advanced pocketknife technology, but that doesn’t stack up so well against an F-18.
- California. It thinks it’s a country already, even to the point of making treaties with our allies. Most Americans don’t like it any more than they like France — or not much more. Mainly, I just think Ahnold would be a much more fun to demonize than Dear Leader.
That’s my list so far. What do y’all think?
Related Posts
I think you have way too much time on your hands.
No, actually, this is the kind of stuff I churn out when I DON’T have time.
Back when THEY were a superpower???
Back in the year 2000, I believed almost without thinking about it that the US was a “superpower”, the only “superpower” in the world. Maybe it was true and maybe it wasn’t, but there was a lot of money around, Americans were pretty prosperous, and most people around the world had a benign view of the US.
Maybe the clearest sign of our “superpower” status was that the right wing and the press could beat up on Bill Clinton with absolutely no effect on US power or the perception of US power. Beating up on Bill Clinton was a kind of parlor game that the participants cared about, but was in the end of no international import. The most surprising thing, then, about the last five years is how quickly and absolutely the US has ceased to be a superpower.
We are a country that can no longer pay our bills, no longer wage an effective military action, and no longer protect our citizens from disaster. And it doesn’t matter what fiscal responsibility individuals show, what bravery individual soldiers show, or what generosity individual Americans show. As a nation-as a geopolitical entity-we have been stripped of all of our superpowers and many of our powers, and it has been done quickly and efficiently, in the name of blind patriotism, by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and their neocon advisors. The very powers that these people thought they were going to enjoy exercising have slipped out of their grasp. It’s laughable now to remember the name of the campaign against Baghdad, “Shock and Awe”. No one in Iraq feels any “shock and awe” toward the US presence there any longer. “Fear and Loathing” is more like it.
Whether or not the administration and the press know that the powers are gone doesn’t matter. They are. And they aren’t coming back, because the last twenty-five years of Republican free market political devolution have resulted in a completely different country from the one that in the course of the 20th century became a superpower. Bush and Cheney have provided the final, telling blows to American power, but actions of the corporatocracy laid the ground work. There is nothing left in the US of real substance. The only thing that remains is ego, bullying, and public relations. The question thoughtful Americans are going to have to answer eventually is one they should be thinking about
now-when our superpowers are gone, what are we and what do we want to be?
Jane Smiley
Careful, the French pack a mean head-butt.
California has capped their industrial machine which should limit their ability to produce weapons. BUT, if we win does this mean Jerry Brown becomes an American citizen?
All the Latin American countries hate Argentina. We would certainly be allowed to stage our troops in Chile and Brasil. Bonus, we could use Brasilian technology and use ethanol for our tanks, saving us gas (yes I know you can’t do that).
Russia’s clearly evil. Did you see how Putin stole that poor man’s superbowl ring. That was a slap to the face of all things Americano. After all that man is true American Patriot!
Switzerland? How about we pull for Nadal to beat up on Federer again? That would hurt them worse.
What a silly, manufactured topic, with all the genuine, serious issues about the real enemies of our civilization, both foreign and domestic.
I suppose it is symptomatic of the desire of most people to avoid contemplating the world situation beyond complaining about all the problems not being solved, so they can live in Disneyland.
How about some of those demanding “change” and “a new direction” telling us exactly what they would DO differently, why they think it would work, and why they didn’t do it when they were in power years ago.
Also, it’s about time the anti-French jokes went the way of the cotton gin. The French people do not hate us. In fact, large portions of the general public love American culture or, at least, they are enamored with Southerners. There is plenty of historical precedence for this. I have experienced such affection in my own travels.
There is a vocal minority in France who feel their culture is threatened by us and their government uses this fear and loathing to further its ends. Sound familiar, mon freres?
To rewrite a famous quote, the last refuge of a poor comedian is picking on the French.
What about Massachusetts? First of all, it’s spelled funny, so that makes them suspect right there. Second, they elect infidels like Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy with regularity, plus they have a history of producing radical revolutionaries like Sam and John Adams, John Hancock and their ilk. And don’t forget all those colleges where they indoctrinate the youth with anti-American ideas like reading and stuff.
Lee, just ask us if we missed you. You don’t have to come back “bigger and badder” after your recent absence to prove anything to us.
We recognize your existence and noted that you were gone. We may not have posted it here, but I’m sure the majority of us wondered if you had been kidnapped or just much delayed.
You have been affirmed. Feel free to start a life journal, Oprah-style. [cue generic, non-threatening music]
Now, you really didn’t mean all those terrible things you said above, correct?
[cue close up on Lee’s face of rapidly diminishing anger; fade to black as audience expectant of Lee’s answer is treated to diaper commercial with nekkid babies running rampant]
The reality is if we dropped our immigration laws completely
I almost spit my coffee out this morning reading this line. WHAT IMMIGRATION LAW? Too funny, amazing that some still believe in the Emperor’s new cloths…
My version of the Axis of Evil:
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
All you neo-cons out there read the Neo-Con @
http://www.third-way.com/
It’s a sobering indictment of the failures of the Bush Administration in it’s failed attempt to wage a successful war against terror. Everything Dave, Lex, Lee and Brad have said over the numerous posts made on this blog are thoroughly debunked. Not only are we, as Americans, less safe because of the Iraq quagmire, but the Iraqi people themselves are worse off now than before we toppled Saddam! A half trillion dollars in treasure blown. 20,000 American lives shattered. And for what? This is probably the most disgusting failure of any president in American history.
NOTE: I have deleted six comments from this post for violation of the civility policy — one each from Mary Rosh, Dave and Capital A, and a stunning three from Lee.
And French jokes are never going away, Capital A. As for your assertion that "the last refuge of a poor comedian is picking on the French," I refer you to one who has influenced me greatly in this area, Mark Twain. Check this site. Here are some samples:
Of course, no one ever accused him of being original, right?
In the same post that you deleted 6 posts for incivility you blasted the French with a bunch of tasteless jokes! Brad you take the cake.
Since Brad has already included a domestic component to his new Axis, I propose the following: Wyoming, the 2 Dakotas, and Nebraska.
Point taken, Brad. I salute your ability to find the free time to research such a post:) I envy you, actually.
My larger point was that it’s a tired bit of hackery to further engage in the practice. Ok, we get it. The French are perceived as snobs. Thanks for the news flash, Monsieur Obvious!
Twain was given to small-mindedness and outright meanness at times. Drunkenness and having a couple of hit novels to sponsor your vices tends to lead one down those paths.
Unfortunately for him (as opposed to me), he didn’t have you as Der Editor to peruse and pulverize his most unpalatable pontifications. I think we can all drink to that.
Brad,
I think your blog lacks an editorial focus. I had thought it would attempt to complement the newspaper by expanding debate on news and political issues.
Swapping yuks about “my favorite movie – Porkies or Animal House” would seem to belong in a forum connected to the entertainment section of the paper.
Yo, bud — I’m using my real name!
And is it a crime suddenly to quote great American humorists?
My conscience is clear. That won’t last long though — after all, I AM a Catholic. I’m still fretting over the "Hail Mary Rosh" thing.
As a great man once wrote:
Yeah, I’ve got one.
What’s the difference between Brad Warthen and the French forces at Dien Bien Phu?
The French forces went to Vietnam.
Bud, I think you know as well as I do that Warthen’s “civility” rule is just an excuse for him to delete my posts.
There are plenty of serious threads – POST AWAY!
Lee, we’re trading yuks on movies. I think your favorite movie would be Chicken Little.
I think Mary could make a junk yard dog whimper, she’s so mean. I think her movie is the GRINCH! gggrrr!!!!
RTH, Bud and Cap A, your movies are Farenheit 911 and Inconvenient Truth.
Lex’s is Wall Street (1987) with Martin Sheen and Michael Douglas. It’s the story of a greedy corporate raider who thinks the market model will get him everything he wants.
Dave’s movie is Nixon (1995) because it portrayed the good and bad sides of Nixon.
Alex’s movie, although he’s not here any more, is The DaVinci Code.
Of course, BW’s movie is American Beauty because Kevin Spacey was going through a midlife crisis and I contend that Brad is as well.
OK, I dished it out and I can take it!!!
Wally, you may be surprised but we do have immigration laws. A co-worker of mine from India waited 5 years to be allowed into the US. This is a guy who is near genius (almost up to my level – heeeheee) and then he had to wait nearly another year for his lawful wife to join him here. Ask people from Poland and Britain and EU countries if we have laws. The sad thing is the honest people who don’t sneak in get screwed while we turn away the best and brightest of the world.
And Brad, you must have better things to do than nitpick supposedly uncivil postings. With Rosh’s posting, that gives you a full time job right there.
Randy, I found Farenheit 9/11 to be the polar equivalent to what the right does in bits and pieces through its various media outlets. It had its moments, but Michael (One) Moore (Burger)conveniently dismisses facts, as well.
Where is his film concerning American obesity and the propagandic machine driving food consumption in this country? He could supersize Supersize This! if he wanted, but I guess the subject hits to close to the dinner plate.
I haven’t seen Gore’s movie, but I am curious to see what the hubbub is concerning it. It’ll have to be a masterpiece to convince me that “global warming” is anything more than a trendy, fear-mongering money grab.
“I haven’t seen Gore’s movie, but I am curious to see what the hubbub is concerning it. It’ll have to be a masterpiece to convince me that “global warming” is anything more than a trendy, fear-mongering money grab.”
Know all about climate science, do you?
We know that some of the world’s top climatologists say “global warming” is not supported by evidence. I posted links to several of them here, and no one even tried to dispute what they said.
More freakin gang violence; there’s a serious topic. I know there was a similar thread a couple weeks ago, but this is getting stupid (not stoopid).
Fortune magazine and CNN-Money have comment blogs tied to their stories – not all of them.
Each post is held and examined, so the editors can toss out the nonsense and off-topic junk.
Here is one, topic chosen only because it is a new article with an attached discussion.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/06/commentary/sahadi/index.htm
Know all about climate science, do you?
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Sep 6, 2006 6:01:05 PM
Mary, stick to your endless roundabouts with those who more match your half-wit. You’ve done well to stay on the right side of me so far.
If not, I may rename you Norma Desmond and tip Max to drive you off a cliff. At times, you’re already halfway to the moon.
She’s ready for her closeup now, Mr. DeMille.
And a surprising twist to further prove my original point to you frog-giggers…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/pl_nm/eu_usa_poll_dc
Capital A, I just asked what seems to be a relevant question.
Which of these two alternatives is a more accurate description of the state of your understanding of climate science?
Do you know:
A. A great deal about climate science?
B. Nearly nothing about climate science?
It is through the answers to questions such as these that we determine the value of a person’s opinion on an issue.
Randy, why worry about gang violence. We are focusing on real crime in Columbia, smoking! What the Crips and Bloods do is child’s play in comparison.
Your movie is “Lean On Me” where you are the mayor who hires Joe Clark (me) as the principal. Nothing like a baseball bat to straighten out a bad school.
Dave, the way we Red Sox (ok, I’m just a weiney fan) are swinging, it would be useless.
Actually, I am a big believer in tough love for the kids.
“Mary Rosh” doesn’t seem to know enough about the dates of Vietnam War and Brad Warthen’s age to realize that he was probably not old enough to join the Army until almost all the troops had been withdrawn from South Vietnam.
I didn’t see any big rush of liberal Democrats volunteering to fight in Haiti or Kosovo for Bill Clinton’s excellent adventures.
It is through the answers to questions such as these that we determine the value of a person’s opinion on an issue.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Sep 6, 2006 9:45:39 PM
You miss my implicit meaning which, more explicitly stated, would be: Please just ignore my posts as I do yours. I have minor respect for your rantings since (half the time) you present yourself as little more than some perverse sybarite who takes great pleasure in reading his same rantings posted in EXACTLY THE SAME format each time.
At least Lee mixes his extremism up a bit…
To answer your question this one time, though, I do know enough about the fossil record (a hobby of mine) to see that this planet is capable of great climactic alteration without our assistance. Humans are too insignificant in the log of this world’s history to have made such a dramatic impact, so quickly. This is my stance as of this moment.
To suggest otherwise is sheer arrogance.
Unlike you (the “you” we’ve noted so far), my mind may be changed upon the presentation of greater evidence. Gore’s film may aid in that end.
Just looking at the all-time heat records and seeing so many in the late 1940s might indicate that the Earth is actually cooler today.
In the late 1980s, the temperature measurements for climatic records changed from direct readings of mercury dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures to the use of solid state devices like the AD590 and non-linear resistive devices, and the use of satellite thermal imaging, all of which give a slightly higher reading than mercury thermometers.
Wow Lee. You’ve stumbled onto something here. I bet there’s not a single climatoligist in the world that knew this.
There is near universal agreement among the world’s experts that the temperature of the earth’s surface is going up. Most now believe human activity is the main cause. Let’s see how this plays out over the next several years. I’m still a bit hesitant to state with absolute certainity this is the case.
A lot of climatologists probably are unaware of the fundamental methods used to gather the data they use.
Chill out over global warming – experts say it’s bunk
06/05/2006
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
You’ll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.
Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you’re at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University’s Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world’s foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming “hoax” makes him an outcast.
“They’ve been brainwashing us for 20 years,” Gray says. “Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
“Climatologists,” reads the piece, “are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. … The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we’d be?
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
200 top climatologists agree that there is no global warming due to pollution.
– Prof. Graham, Univ. of Colorado, #1 climatologist in the world – “NO GLOBAL WARMING! IT’S LAUGHABLE.”, next
– Dr. Lindzen,Head of MIT science Dept., #1 science school in USA, “NO GLOBAL WARMING”, next
– Swiss Confederation of scientists in Zurich, “NO GLOBAL WARMING!”, next, World Conference of Meteoroligists & Climatologists, 2001, Hague, Netherlands, “NO GLOBAL WARMING”, next, Head of the Scottish Scientists Confederation, Edinburgh, “NO GLOBAL WARMING”, next
– Univ. of Chicago, Science Dept, “NOT ONLY NO GLOBAL WARMING,BUT WE MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED A COOLING TREND!!!!”
“To answer your question this one time, though, I do know enough about the fossil record (a hobby of mine) to see that this planet is capable of great climactic alteration without our assistance. Humans are too insignificant in the log of this world’s history to have made such a dramatic impact, so quickly. This is my stance as of this moment.”
So the state of your knowledge about climate science is that you know virtually nothing about it, and base your view not on information, but on some vague philosophical impression you have. Is that about right?
See, this gives us important information that is useful in assigning a proper value to your opinion on the issue.
It’s funny how when the Slickmeister was in power, there was no Global warming. In fact the US Senate voted 99-0 to reject the Kyoto treaty. Now, with the Gorbot leading the way of all the dumb and dumbers, the socialists look at GW as a vehicle to pass laws to exert more controls over the citizenry. Last year GW caused all the violent storms and hurricanes and even the Tsunami. Now it went away and the Gorbots are hoping desperately for a huge and costly storm to decimate the US before this next election, because, after all, it will be Bush’s fault.
That was last year.
And it’s still here.
How about this for an axis of evil:
ABC
FOX
Clear Channel
The ABC mini-series on the 9-11 attacks is nothing but pure right-wing propoganda.
Uh, bud, what did you expect from a piece of the conglomerate founded by a Nazi supporter?
(I’ll just go ahead and Godwin myself now before the right wingers can.)
In several polls of ABC news anchors and producers, 85% of them described themselves as “liberal” or “progressive” and voted for Clinton and Al Gore. Their political leanings are in line with news people as a whole, radio, TV and newspaper.
Why would they try to smear their own candidates?
Lee, you should know by now that the media is its own whore and will do anything for attention.
Lee, that’s easy. ABC wants something in return from the Bush Administration after the election. The news anchors may be democrats but the owners of the company, the people who make the decisions about what aires, are Republicans who are mostly interested in making money.
The so-called liberal anchors you refer to are part of the news wing of ABC. The slanderous 9-11 documentary is part of the entertainment wing.
That’s your imagination, but without any evidence to back it up, of course. The SELF-described liberal anchors and news producers claim they don’t receive any pressure from business management.
More fundamentally, you haven’t even seen the documentary yet, much less challenged anything it says. You are just parrotting the blanket denial by the Clinton henchmen about their failures to pursue the terrorists.
One lie is that they never passed up the chance to kill Laden, yet we see the camera images of him from our CIA drone, and hear requests to call in a USAF bomb strike being denied.
The 9/11 Commission already documented that Clinton and Reno refused to have Bin Laden arrested and extradicted on his 1993 bomb indictments. Clinton and Albright ordered the FBI to stop checking fingerprints and backgrounds of Iranian athletes who might be spies.
I’m not conceeding any of your points Lee. Most of the facts suggest Clinton did make an effort to bolster security in this country and to capture Bin Laden. At the end of the day what’s really important in all of this? It’s crystal clear, beyond any doubt, Clinton fully appreciated the threat from Al Queada and Osama Bin Laden when he left office. When his team tried to pass their concerns along to the Bush team they were completely ignored. And what we had was America’s worst nightmare. Complete with an incompetent president reading My Pet Goat.
Bud, The Clinton administration turned over 45,000 pages of documents to the Bush administration on terrorism and plans to combat it. OBL was mentioned ONLY 4 times in those 45,000 pages. They had ignored him as someone who they thought we didnt have enough “proof” to go after. Reality hurts doesnt it?
Lee, it’s a fact that the Reagan Administration trained and abetted Bin Laden in his struggles against the USSR in Afghanistan. We created our own monster and like so many times before in our history, it came back to haunt us.
This is what happens when we stray from the ideals set forth by our forefathers.
NO ADMINISTRATION, be they “conservative” or “liberal,” in the post-Reagan era should have been ignorant of Bin Laden or his motivations. If our government is going to create these loose ends, then at least it should tie them up by putting a bullet in the brainpan of such jackals as one would any mad dog that has outlived its usefulness.
In other words, if you’re going to be benevolent, be benevolent. If you’re going to play the role of the self-interested superpower, then do it halfway convincingly. Give a sure shot.
Dave, you really should stop listening to Sean, Rush and Bill. Richard Clarke, Paul O’neil and others are adament in his support of Clinton’s efforts and Bush’s failures.
Speaking of failures. You mentioned a while back that American “casualties” in Iraq were down. Of course you mean deaths. Guess what, that’s not even true any longer.
Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
9-2006 22 3 0 25 3.12 8
8-2006 67 1 0 68 2.19 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
If ever there was a misguided, failed mission, this is it. What will it take for the right in this country to admit the Bush Administration has made a huge mistake.
They’ll need to be deprogrammed.Let’s have a
little sympathy,though,being brainwashed must
be an awful experience.Remember Patty Hearst?
It made a lot more sense for Reagan to arm the Muslims fighting the USSR in 1983 than it did for Clinton to arm the Muslims do they could conduct ethnic cleansing on the Jews and Christians in Kosovo in 1998.
Uh, Lee, those Muslims in Kosovo DIDN’T FLY TWO AIRLINERS INTO A MAJOR US LANDMARK WITH AMERICAN CITIZENS INSIDE!
Can you hear me now?
Bud, do you know what a trend line is? Since April of 06 fatalities are trending down.
So, Cap A, we should now ignore all terrorist Muslims unless they flew planes into buildings on 9-11? weird logic.
So, Cap A, we should now ignore all terrorist Muslims unless they flew planes into buildings on 9-11? weird logic.
Posted by: Dave | Sep 9, 2006 4:33:00 AM
Mark Whit, do you have some postulate or theorem to classify Dave? You’re better at that than I am, and his “weird logic” just caused me to slump over in exhaustion.
Some of those Muslims in Kosovo armed by Clinton have been killed fighting against us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know by the serial numbers on the AK-47s and other which Clinton supplied to them. Other weapons have been used in the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Jews from Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia and Serbia. Over 250,000 of them survivors are now homeless and the Muslims continue to burn them out.
I am disgusted by the selfish attitude of American liberal Democrats who create messes, kill thousands of people in countries which were not bothering us, and then announce that they don’t care about them killing other people outside the US.
kill thousands of people in countries which were not bothering us – Lee
The White House according to Lee:
Rumsfeld: “Jong-Il wants to talk to us one on one. That pygmy really annoys me.
W: What country is he from?
General Pace: “North Korea, sir.”
Cheney: “Put North Korea on the list!”
General Pace: “What list is this, sir?”
Cheney: “That info is on a need to know basis.”
Rumsfeld: “Look at this, Ahmadinejad refuses to meet the UN deadline! That punk annoys me!”
W: “What country is he from?”
Pace: “Iran, sir.”
Cheney: “Put them on the list.”
Innocent civilian victims of American liberal foreign policy
* 50,000,000 Russians others killed by the USSR
* 50,000,000 Chinese murdered by the communists
* 5,000,000 Vietnamese murdered by the North Vietnamese
* 4,000,000 Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot
* 250,000 Yugoslavians murdered, raped and evicted by Muslims whom Bill Clinton armed
* 500,000 Somalis and Sudanese killed by Muslim radicals
* 10,000,000 Iraqis starved to death by Clinton and the UN theft of food money
Total number of those killed and affected by the decision of the Reagan Administration to arm and train Osama bin Laden:
Total number killed in attacks (official figure as of 9/5/02): 2,819
Number of firefighters and paramedics killed: 343
Number of NYPD officers: 23
Number of Port Authority police officers: 37
Number of WTC companies that lost people: 60
Number of employees who died in Tower One: 1,402
Number of employees who died in Tower Two: 614
Number of employees lost at Cantor Fitzgerald: 658
Number of U.S. troops killed in Operation Enduring Freedom: 22
Number of nations whose citizens were killed in attacks: 115
Ratio of men to women who died: 3:1
Age of the greatest number who died: between 35 and 39
Bodies found “intact”: 289
Body parts found: 19,858
Number of families who got no remains: 1,717
Estimated units of blood donated to the New York Blood Center: 36,000
Total units of donated blood actually used: 258
Number of people who lost a spouse or partner in the attacks: 1,609
Estimated number of children who lost a parent: 3,051
Percentage of Americans who knew someone hurt or killed in the attacks: 20
FDNY retirements, January–July 2001: 274
FDNY retirements, January–July 2002: 661
Number of firefighters on leave for respiratory problems by January 2002: 300
Number of funerals attended by Rudy Giuliani in 2001: 200
Number of FDNY vehicles destroyed: 98
Tons of debris removed from site: 1,506,124
Days fires continued to burn after the attack: 99
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100
Days the New York Stock Exchange was closed: 6
Point drop in the Dow Jones industrial average when the NYSE reopened: 684.81
Days after 9/11 that the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan: 26
Total number of hate crimes reported to the Council on American-Islamic Relations nationwide since 9/11: 1,714
Economic loss to New York in month following the attacks: $105 billion
Estimated cost of cleanup: $600 million
Total FEMA money spent on the emergency: $970 million
Estimated amount donated to 9/11 charities: $1.4 billion
Estimated amount of insurance paid worldwide related to 9/11: $40.2 billion
Estimated amount of money needed to overhaul lower-Manhattan subways: $7.5 billion
Amount of money recently granted by U.S. government to overhaul lower-Manhattan subways: $4.55 billion
Estimated amount of money raised for funds dedicated to NYPD and FDNY families: $500 million
Percentage of total charity money raised going to FDNY and NYPD families: 25
Average benefit already received by each FDNY and NYPD widow: $1 million
Percentage increase in law-school applications from 2001 to 2002: 17.9
Percentage increase in Peace Corps applications from 2001 to 2002: 40
Percentage increase in CIA applications from 2001 to 2002: 50
Number of songs Clear Channel Radio considered “inappropriate” to play after 9/11: 150
Number of mentions of 9/11 at the Oscars: 26
Apartments in lower Manhattan eligible for asbestos cleanup: 30,000
Number of apartments whose residents have requested cleanup and testing: 4,110
Number of Americans who changed their 2001 holiday-travel plans from plane to train or car: 1.4 million
Estimated number of New Yorkers suffering from post-traumatic-stress disorder as a result of 9/11: 422,000
Clinton was the idiot for putting his nose into Serbia and arming KNOWN Al Qaeda groups AFTER they had bombed the WTC in 1993, our embassies and the USS Cole.
Bin Laden was not even a low grade leader when Reagan was arming Muslim rebels against the Evil Empire of the USSR. He did the right thing.
We did the right thing to give Saddam enough support to keep his regime afloat during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, too. If we had not, we would have had to fight Iran in a land war covering Irag, Iran, and all of the OPEC nations.
Lee, please check your facts before you post. bin Laden was much more than a low grade leader. He financed and led one of the most successful “Russian-busting,” Afghan units.
If you were the cynical, Republican leadership of the time, do you think you’d earmark him for a bullet the minute he outlived his worth to your cause? To revive an overused expression from the ’80s:
Duh!
You simply don’t know enough about Bin Laden, where he started, and how long it took him to rise to a leader. It is all just a blurr of left wing hate propaganda for you.
Bin Laden was certainly a terrorist leader and under indictment by a federal grand jury when Clinton and Albright were arming some of his allies in Kosovo.
If you go down the UN’s itemized list of Iraq’s WMD, you find all the weapons and machinery to make them came from Russia, Red China, France and Germany. The nuclear facility was sold to Red China, then to Iraq when Red China upgraded their own.
And how is arming bin Laden’s alleged “allies” in Kosovo different from the American support for Saddam Hussein when he was fighting the Iranians? One reason folks like me believed that Saddam had WMDs was that we had sold him some of them or the materials to make them.
1. Clinton armed groups who had already attacked the US, in order to destabilize a country which was no threat to us. It resulted in massive civilian “ethnic cleansing” by the Muslims.
2. Reagan armed Saddam a little bit to just hold off Iran from taking over all the oil fields in the Mideast. After that, Saddam was armed by Russia and Red China, and we had to go to war to stop his support of terrorists and development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Those programs are not in dispute among serious people.
If you go down the UN’s itemized list of Iraq’s WMD, you find all the weapons and machinery to make them came from Russia, Red China, France and Germany. The nuclear facility was sold to Red China by the USSR, then to Iraq when Red China upgraded their own.
Robot Presidents are Being Created. Presidential assassinations and assassination attempts will never again be a security concern once state-ofthe- art federal robots hold the office of the U.S. Presidency. Making use of a downscaled version of Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robot technology, not only can the Presidential robots withstand the force of a 10 megaton bomb, but they never need to sleep, can work on up to 380 projects at once and can be programmed with intelligence, sensitivity and charisma.
I am more worried about Democrat robot voters, programmed to vote for more welfare for themselves and more taxes on working Americans.
I have finally figured out Lee and Lex’s axis of evil:
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Income Taxes
Perhaps we should opt for an all-volunteer government?
Nah, Herb it will be a choice government. If you don’t like the governor, you can opt for a prime minister. If democracy is not your cup of tea, mabye we can also choose from dictatorship, communism, and let’s not forget a monarchy.