The first two will make you mad -- here is an article by Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times (he was forced to resign after one of his reporters, Jayson Blair, fabricated numerous articles, and the second is from a chat by Associate Editor Robert Kaiser of the Washinton Post.

Here is one question and answer from the online chat that is quite telling and explanatory of the Post's coverage of the war.

Atlanta, Ga.: I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but as of late, things that were once dismissed as laughable, impossible or "unpatriotic" are turning out to be at least partially true e.g. Halliburton's White House ties, intra-agency turf wars, U.S. government knowingly releasing "untruths," etc. My question to you, do you easily dismiss conspiracists or do you at least consider the possibility they may be speaking truths? How does this affect as you as journalist (assuming if affects you at all)?

Robert G. Kaiser : Lots of questions like this, too, but this is a particularly thoughtful version that I would like to answer.

Let's begin with an old joke: Even hypochondriacs get sick. Conspiracies are very difficult to run inside the U.S. government, thankfully. But they happen. Watergate is really a collection of conspiracies that were kept secret for a long time, and might never have been revealed. The Iran-Contra affair is/was a conspiracy that has never been fully explained (for example, we have never been able to discover the real role of George H.W. Bush in that dark business).

To answer your specific questions, I do personally react against theories of vast conspiracies. This is just part of my skeptical makeup, I guess. But I try never to reject the possibility entirely.

So, for example, I do think there was what amounted to a kind of conspiracy to get the U.S. into a war against Iraq, if we define the term as a secretive plot involving a group within the government but excluding many important officials, who bent events and information to their undeclared purpose. Although you'd have to say it was a barely undeclared purpose. "

Remember also that these two men were or are still in charge of hard news coverage for the New York Times and the Washington Post -- not the opinion pages.

Here are several articles that are much more interesting and beneficial.

Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal (former speechwriter for Reagan) and a marine stationed outside of Fallujah are required reading for today! If you wish, visit http://www.thegreenside.com for more letters from the front.

Also read this letter from another Marine. These stories are not being reported, but you can help spread them around!

I supply the reader with four short examples clearly illuminating the horrific intellectual debasement of the liberal mind:

Where is the outrage from California Rep. Stark (D)? He verbally assaulted one of our own soldiers on his personal answering machine for daring to condemn the Representative’s vote against condemning the atrocities while showing full support for the rest of our troops. Rep. Stark (the “Left Coast” indeed!) seems to be siding with the terrorists by trying to shut down opposition to his own views by verbally assaulting one of his own constituents in a time of war, no less!

Where is the outrage from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D)? He has castigated the Bush administration for the prosecution of one of the most successful wars in human history in terms of the shortness of the occupation of a foreign force, the limited number of civilian casualties (otherwise known as “collateral damage” – see comments by John Kerry on his own war time atrocities that everyone is dismissing out of hand.

Where is the outrage Barbara Streisand? The embodiment of Hollywood hypocrisy, Barbara utilizes every means necessary, no matter how crass, to pathetically declare her complete ignorance of world affairs. She drones on behind the thick veil of willful ignorance about aspects of life she knows nothing about. Would to God she would just once pronounce some sort of solution to the problems as she sees it from on high. But no. Banter, without the slightest hope of meaningful dialogue. Much like clouds without rain during a drought…..they look ominous, but in the end pass over without displacing even the minutest pebble of the human landscape.

Where is the outrage liberal Media? From the annals of time, world leaders have had their detractors. That is part of freedom that remains both insufferable and tolerable. For the sake of my right to write this column, I must bear the opposition to be heard. But, unlike them, you don’t see me calling for their boss’ head on a platter when ever one of their misfits break rank and cross the ethical line. I may point out the error, but I leave them to their conscience (maybe that policy should change?). While we listen to the anti-American media pontificate about Rumsfeld’s head this, and Bush’s Vietnam that, Mr. and Mrs. Lunchpail wait with baited breath out here in fly-over country for one, just one, condemnation of the Al Queda thugs who killed an ABC reporter 2 years ago, who kill civilians world-wide, and who sacrifice their own on the alter of perverse religious ambition. They have now barbarically cut off the head of an American, “justified” by the abuse our troops inflicted on Iraqi prisoners. Before it goes to press, as of right now, I go on record to blame the blood-thirsty, ideologically blinded, anti-American media for the death of that innocent civilian.
Do you really think you will hear condemnation from the above-mentioned people? Of course you won’t! Just as Al Jazera wouldn’t air the murder of an Italian because Al Queda wasn’t able to force their captive to “submit” to them (mind you, Islam means “to submit”) before blowing his brains out, you won’t see the American Media show the whole video of 5 Al Queda thugs ruthlessly behead one of our own. And, just by chance, they do…they will blame the Bush Administration for his death rather than rightfully blame the thugs who actually committed the crime. We will prosecute our loathsome few who were “Caught on Tape” abusing Iraqi’s. We have yet to prosecute those who have killed so many innocent lives around the globe. Even Saddam Husein gets better treatment than our soldiers who going to be court martialed.

While these examples are not meant to be comprehensive, they illustrate vividly how we, as American citizens, face more than one enemy. We not only face the global threat of cowardly terrorists trying to raze civilization, as we have known it for some 2000+ years, we face the unbearable enemy from within!

This writer, for one, is more terrified of the Bastian of hedonistic, humanistic, Marxist liberalism that is slowly choking our country to death by, ironically, utilizing the very institution freedom depends on most – namely, the rule of law in a free society – to stifle the true freedom of expression we all posses. What determines human destiny is not the bloated bureaucracy of human government, but the inherent drive of the human spirit, born within the heart of each person, given free reign to exercise himself as he sees fit, within the safe confines of the rule of law, to create, imagine, reform, and shape the future for the good of all mankind…not just a select few who think they know better than anyone else. THAT is what defines and separates liberals from all else, the “Blue” states from the “Red” ones… and what separates the future of this country from the ash heap of failed societies.

Mike Carbiener
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Citizen at Large.

This edited version of the article was run in the "Letters to the Editor" section

Since the Star Tribune sees fit in its editorial to call for the resignations of Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, I await its followup editorial calling for John Kerry to drop out of the presidential race since he has admitted to committing and being party to war-time atrocities far worse than those uncovered at Abu Grahib Prison.

To read the entire submission, please click on the extended entry portion.

I have also updated the "Terms List" with several terms submitted by Toby Phillips.

Also, just to illustrate the type of newspaper we have to contend with out here, please read these two articles. One is on the visit by President Bush to the Twin Cities and the other is on the visit by Kerry. Both articles were written by the same person. Feel free to let me know what you thought.

Bush's visit

Kerry's Visit

One more item, tomorrow I will have a letter by Mike Carbinier sent to Congressment Stark in response to Stark's extremely rude and illuminating voicemail to a constituent.

Over the past year, the editorial page has also made the following claims: Bush is responsible for not preventing 9-11; Bush fraudulently invaded Iraq; Bush has destroyed the peace negotiations in the Middle East; and Bush has undermined the tremendous goodwill that the United States previously enjoyed.

None of these claims has any basis in fact or reason. First of all, Bush could not have prevented 9-11. That task fell to the previous president --- who if we must assign blame --- was far more culpable than Bush. Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, Demolished military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1995, Destroyed two embassies in Africa in 1998 -- killing several hundred people, and attacked the USS Cole in October of 2000 -- killing 17 sailors. The terrorists responsible for the 9-11 attacks were already present in the country with their plans well underway when Bush took office in January of 2001, a mere 8 months prior to the attacks.

Secondly, by claiming that Bush fabricated the need to invade Iraq, you ignore the fact that the policy of regime change was implemented in 1998 (fully two years before Bush was even elected) under the administration of President Clinton and supported by Senators Kerry and Daschle. You also ignore the actions of the United Nations, which in resolution 1441, passed in the fall of 2002, demanded that Saddam Hussein prove definitively that he had no weapons of mass destruction or face the possibility of military action. No one has argued that the actions Saddam took after the passage of the resolution were even close to compliance.

Your page also continues to propagate the lie that Bush declared Iraq an imminent threat. What he said in his State of the Union speech in January of 2003 was that we must act now before the threat becomes imminent. Once a terrorist nation possesses chemical and nuclear weapons, we face a much harder task in defending ourselves.

In a similar vein, declaring that Bush is responsible for the collapse of the Mid-East peace talks defies all logic. In the summer of 2000, President Clinton, with the approval of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered Arafat a peace plan giving the Palestinians most of their demands. Yet, because the plan did not contain the so-called "right of return," Arafat rejected the deal and launched the continuing Intifada, seeking to undermine Israel through terrorist attacks. The "right of return" was rejected because it calls for flooding Israel, a country of 6 million with 4 million descendents of Palestininans who left over the past 50 years in the hopes that neighboring Arab states would wipe out the country of Israel. To claim that Bush is responsible for the failure of peace talks, ignores the reality that peace will not be achieved while Israel is under siege from constant terrorist attacks.

As for Bush losing the goodwill of the world community, please define goodwill? Over the past 10 years, terrorists have constantly attacked us. When President Clinton negotiated a diplomatic solution in 1994 to North Korea's nuclear program, North Korea immediately broke the agreement and now has nuclear weapons; many companies and diplomats from France, Russia and Germany were secretly receiving bribes and handouts from Saddam Hussein allowing him to continue the starvation, torture and subjugation of 23 million people. Many countries and groups were and continue to be working towards undermining our country. If defending and protecting our nation as is necessary undermines so-called goodwill, then that is a consequence we must accept.

Your editorial page has an opportunity to help shape public debate. Questioning decisions or rationale for actions is a healthy and necessary part of our free press, but by ignoring facts and truth on a number of occasions, you have squandered a tremendous opportunity and platform.

Unilateral: Without the express written consent of the United Nations (i.e. France)

Imperialist Actions: Military Actions taken in Iraq, Afghanistan and in defending against the former Soviet Bloc (does not include Kosovo or Haiti)

Mainstream: Includes anyone who supports abortion, gay marriages, and higher taxes

Ideological Fringe: Those who are against abortion and gay marriage, anyone who is religous or for lower taxes.

Neocon: Claimed to be used to describe the "New Conservatives" but actually used to claim the influence of Jewish conservatives in promoting an Israel first policy.

Attacking Patriotism: John Kerry, Tom Daschle, et al. all claim that Bush and the Republican party are constantly attacking their patriotism (cannot point to a single instance) and then explicitly attack the President's patriotism by claiming he was AWOL in the guard and that he entered the war in Iraq solely for personal gain.

Haliburton: Used to describe the evils of capitalism (also shorthand for evil incarnate)

Oedipus Complex: Why Bush went to war in Iraq to finish the job his dad started and for revenge against Saddam for his assasination plot on Bush the elder

Tolerance: Ideal of society, except when conservative views or any dissenting viewpoints are espoused.

Just War: Oxymoron (i.e. does not exist)

Biased Media: Fox News, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and theWeekly Standard

Unbiased Media: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, and the Star Tribune

Free Thinker: Liberal

Nazi: conservative (Fascist may also be used in place of Nazi)

Work of Art: Anything that attacks a religous ideal

Work of Hate: Anything that espouses a religous ideal

Racist: Conservative (regardless of race)

Uniter: liberal (regardless of membership in the KKK or proven history of racial attacks and demagoguery

Wealthy: anyone who makes over $30,000 a year

Poor: Anyone we designate as such

Personal Responsibility: Has no bearing on the discussion

Tax Cuts: Giving away that which rightfully belongs to the Government

Tax Raise: what is needed when people have lower incomes causing tax receipts to go down.

Guns: responsible for 99% of crime (even when knives or other weapons are involved)

Criminals: those victimized by conservatives or their environment (which was caused by the rights refusal to raise taxes)

True Criminal: Tobacco companies, NRA, Fast Food, Big Business, Corporate Leaders, Religous Leaders, conservatives

Victim: Everybody except those listed as true criminals

Death Penalty: Only applicable to unwanted babies not rapists, murderers, or any other violent criminals.

WEALTHY - Does not include liberals making over $200,000. (Esp. not applicable to politicians.)

ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION - Any legitimate form of income a conservative received immediately prior to, or while running for office.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM - A limit on the amount of money spent from a conservative's own pockets while campaigning. (Not applicable to large, under the table gifts to liberal politicians from special interest groups.)

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP - Any large coalition interested in funding a liberal campaign.

FANATIC - Any individual or group interested in supporting a conservative campaign. (see also CULT)

Pundits claim it is fine for the president to acknowledge God, but to pray daily and seek guidance is fanatical and dangerous. Critics and Journalists such as Andy Rooney from CBS' 60 Minutes, Tom Shales of the Washington Post, and Frank Rich of the New York Times have all denouced as lunatics someone that believes they can know God personally.

Tonight, PBS' Frontline -- NY TImes review will air a documentary called "The Jesus Factor" ( I will try to watch some of this. If you see it, let me know what you thought) which it claims will show how religion affects President Bush's decisions. I have not seen it, so I don't know how it will portray the topic, but I am concerned at the overall message from the media -- "Religion is fine as long as it doesn't affect your life."

The overwhelming criticism of "The Passion of the Christ" by most mainstream movie critics was that it was too faithful to Scripture.

John Kerry assures us that he is religous (Roman Catholic) but that he does not allow religion to affect his daily life (abortion policies).

What can we do in the public debate on this issue? We can stop withdrawing from the debate entirely. We can tell the world what we believe and why. Don't be afraid to write a letter to the editor or an article detailing a Christian's thoughts or beliefs on a topic. Be positive instead of negative. In other words, instead of simply attacking issues or people for how wrong or bad they are, point out what Scripture says and why it is important. Christians are know for what we are against, but can't we tell people what we stand for and why we believe?

Continuing to withdraw from the public discourse or even the world does not protect or shelter us from the evil, it also shelters people from the truth that we know.

Copyright 1992 The Washington Post

February 28, 1992, Friday, Final Edition

HEADLINE: No Time to Resurrect Vietnam

BYLINE: John F. Kerry

BODY:
The following statement was made on the floor of the Senate yesterday.

Mr. President: I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity, to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning; what is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected -- in part -- a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in the experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not. What is missing, and what cries out to be said, is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary. The race for the White House should be about leadership. Leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need now to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now 20 years or 30 years later to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations? Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and instincts of reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I've tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition. But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others, nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today -- in 1992 -- simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart as well as my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency, in both parties, I would plead -- simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills that we face at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and as emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray that we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

The writer is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. He is a Vietnam combat veteran and was a founding member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971.

Warning: Those entering this site may occasionally be subjected to a Green Bay Packer fan's rantings and ravings regarding the current football season.