:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Saturday, December 14, 2002 ::

Memo to "Some Folks"

Look, you and I both know that you agree wholeheartedly with Trent Lott. You can't stand black folks and you never will. That's okay. Just be honest. If you think that we can tolerate you any better, you are truly deluding yourselves. Black folks can't afford to have short memories. Once someone has put his boot on your neck even if he raises the boot, you never forget him or the feeling on his boot on your neck. You can do what you want with Lott because he never had most black americans fooled. We knew what he was and what he stood for. Come to think of it so did you. And yet, you continued to vote him into office. He is your conscience. His words are yours. You know it and I know it. Admit what you believe and what you are. Just know that we will never put our guard down because we never trust you in the first place!

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 12/14/2002 10:22:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Trent "Jefferson Davis" Lott:

Trent,

The next time someone asks you what a racist looks like tell him to look you in your face. You are a disgrace to the Congress and this country. Don't mention the words "Fellow Americans" ever again. It's white racists such as yourself that make me ever thankful that I am black. It amazes me that given your views you are constantly re-elected. Now don't get me wrong Mississippi was and is one of the most racist states in the country. I would have hoped that after all this time some views would change. The threat to America lies within. It's people like you! The Council of Conservative Citizens had you pegged years ago which is why you wrote a column for them for many years. They say birds of a feather... I know that you could give a damn about black americans and your comments yesterday prove that. You are a very small man with no character and not worthy of respect. By the way, I am a black republican and have been for 16 years. I worked in the RNC and I served four years in the Army. What branch of service did you serve in? When young men were answering the call to duty in the 1960s what were you doing besides maintaining your racist views? I will be changing my party affiliation real soon because I am tired of the "white sheets" in my party. What an absolute disgrace!

A New Independent Voter

:: DM1 12/11/2002 09:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Senator Don (Loudmouth) Nickles - Rep and his performance on Fox News Sunday:

It's very disheartening to see such a partisan blowhead like Don Nickles given free time to spout such drivel. A victory in Afganistan is not certain at this point. Let's see what happens in the next two to three years. Right now I see him trying to shift the conversation from Bush's incompetence on the economy to what the democrats are or are not doing. He just mentioned Bill Clinton again! What a disgrace as a so-called "leader". He's just a windbag full of hot air. Why not put someone of true intellect and vision on like Chuck Hagel. Fox News Sunday is nothing but a mouthpiece for the republican party, the right-wing conserative blame everything on Clinton gang! I used to respect Britt Hume until he started opening his mouth and closed his mind. Hey why be objective when your side is in control. Just disgraceful!

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:37:00 PM [+] ::
...

Ten Questions for the Chichkenhawks:

If Saddam is such an immediate threat answer the following questions:

1. Why did Bush take a 30-day vacation in August?
2. Why is not the threat assessment at RED, the highest alert?
3. Why now a month before the mid-term elections and not earlier in the year?
4. How many casualities are acceptable?
5. What are the costs?
6. What is the time frame?
7. How long the occupation?
8. What if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel strikes back with nuclear weapons?
9. What happens if Syria helps Iraq?
10. What happens if the democrats take Congress?

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:35:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Dick Gephardt:

Dear Congressman Gephardt,

I am very disappointed in your actions the other day in giving the appointed president another photo-op. I am a republican and I am amazed that you still don't get it. The current administration cares nothing about you or your position. It only cares that you have "cut" Senator Daschle off at the knees and will now use you to further republican goals. I do not like the direction that this country is taking. I, too, served my country in the Army for four years and as veterans both you and I have a duty to protect this country from foreign enemies and domestic incompetence. You have failed many in your party and many others who are looking for men of courage to stand up against an administration that is bent on war at any cost. I understand that you have visions of running for president in 2004. Well, to win you need to show true leadership. The only thing I saw the other day was a man who stepped on his principles and betrayed many in his party. I see that it is up to those of us who truly understand what Bush and Cheney to carry the burden to ensure that their misguided politics do not continue past 2004. You have made that effort more difficult with your recent actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I will vote for him in 2004. He is showing courage, vision, and leadership and I only hope that some of his qualities begin to rub off on you.

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Charlie, GOP operative and his B.S. on Crossfire

Charlie,

I read the CNN Crossfire transcript for August 8th. Paul Begala spoke about two subsidiaries of Haliburton that were doing business with Iraq while Dick Cheney was CEO. You replied as if you knew nothing about this fact. Now I know that you are not a stupid man so I have a suggestion. Why don't you do your homework and then go talk to Cheney and ask him to explain himself. I doubt that you will take me up on my offer because I don't think you want to know the truth. Folks like you love talking about a lack of character when it comes to Bill Clinton. For all of the accusations made about him, even he didn't do business with Iraq. Being a shrill for a morally bankrupt individual is a disgrace and you ought to be ashamed!. Oh yeah I forgot I'm talking about Dick Cheney not Bill Clinton. Character doesn't matter! Lest you think that I am totally bias, I think you would do better supporting true men of character like Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, and John McCain. Think about it.

A True Republican,

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:33:00 PM [+] ::
...

First let me say that George Bush is not as dumb as folks would believe, but he is also not as smart as he thinks he is. The speech at the U.N. was brilliant because he put together a coherent argument on why Iraq is a problem. He also boxed himself in a corner from which he is now trying to escape. War with Iraq serves many useful purposes for Bush and republicans.

:: DM1 9/27/2002 11:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

I see that some media folks are starting to ask tough questions of the Bush Administration.
Well I have some of my own:

1. Where is Osama?
2. Where is Mullah Omar?
3. Where is the Hart-Rudman Report on Terrorism that was given to Bush in the Spring of 2001?
4. Is Rep. Cynthia McKinney more right than wromg?
5. If Iraq is such an immediate threat why did Bush take a 30 day vacation and go to fund raisers?
6. Why are most of the republicans braying for war chickenhawks while most of the democrats are veterans?
7. If we can't catch Osama who doesn't have a big army, how can we catch Saddam Hussein?
8. Why is Condoleeza Rice the National Security Advisor?
9. If we are so right, why is Kuwait against our invading Iraq.
10. Why can't we see the SEC report on Bush and Harkin? If he was exnorated, wouldn't that strengthen him and weaken his critics?

Just a few questions that I have been wondering about.

:: DM1 9/22/2002 01:46:00 AM [+] ::
...

Addendum to the previous rant. The knucklehead ticked me off so bad I had to get him!:


Also, in your second cowardly response you couldn't even bring yourself to
speak the truth. The soldiers killed by the confederates were United States
soldiers and citizens. For you to use the term "United States soldiers" is
to admit that your whole premise was and is a lie. The terms "federals",
"yankees", and "Union" are terms coined by lairs and curs such as you. The
U.S. Constitution applies only to United States citizens. The traitors that
you mentioned renounced their allegiance and citizenship to the country. I
can see why Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, and Bob Barr and big fans of yours.
You didn't win in 1865 and you won't win now. Too cowardly and yellow for
your own good. Crawl back into the slime with the rest of the ooze.

:: DM1 9/02/2002 07:12:00 AM [+] ::
...

Another email exchange between me and the idiot from the Council of Coservative Citizens. I was showing someone his earlier emails and he emailed right in the middle of it:



----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Alabama Civil Rights Monument


You obviously have no respect for the law, but instead view the impulse of the mob as a virtue. Mob ignorance is your strongest ally. First, Salmon P. Chase was appointed to the Supreme Court by Abraham Lincoln, who usurped the Constitution to make war on the South. Chase was an abolitionist and a hater of the South who wanted to pursue every avenue of prosecution against the leaders of the Confederacy. Nevertheless, Chase found no law that allowed prosecution of the defeated Confederates. Despite a lack of jurisdiction, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned without writ of habeas
corpus for two years. During this time, federal officials sought some legal trick to try Davis for treason. The only recourse for the Federals would have been the creation of an ex post facto law to try Davis. This, also, is unconstitutional. After two years of unjust imprisonment, Davis was released. So any attempt to punish the Confederates would have amounted to a lawless mob lynching. As for King, he got away with his crimes because he had a mob-and the liberal press-as allies. King was sexual profligate and a communist stooge posing as a Christian minister. This makes him not only a wretch, but a total hypocrite. It was King who practiced "civil disobedience," which is by definition lawlessness. But you are right about one thing. We do drink the dregs of history
because we live under the dismal shadow of African incompetence, barbarism, criminality, and lassitude that has wrecked our civilization. No white civilization was ever improved by black supremacy, as Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Detroit clearly demonstrate.


MY RESPONSE:

I was just showing someone your ignorant response. Then you go and out do
yourself!

:: DM1 9/02/2002 07:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

This is the Email that started the previous rant. The writer had argued against a Civil Rights Monument in Alabama:

To Whomever,

I wanted to give you my view of article on the CCC "Thwarting an Alabama Capitol Landscape Scheme". The writer states the following:

"Ironically, any civil rights monument erected at the capital would be an homage to lawlessness and civil disobedience; a fact which eludes commissioners who condemn Meadows actions as "disruptive."

Using the writer's logic, I assume that the writer finds the thousands of monuments constructed to honor the confederacy which was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers during the Civil War equally "lawless". I doubt it because when one is truly morally bankrupt the first thing to go is integrity. I also assume that the writer would insist that the confederates (also known as "Davis, Lee, Jackson, et al.) were "freedom fighters" opposing oppression. If you insist on beating up the civil rights monument, at least, have the integrity to be consistent in your logic and thought.

:: DM1 9/02/2002 07:02:00 AM [+] ::
...

First in a series of emails between Da' Militant One and an idiot with the Council of Conservative Citizens on the traitors: Robert (The Butcher) Lee, Jefferson (Where's my N-gger!) Davis, and the rest of the confederate scum that planted 600,000 U.S. Soldiers:

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Alabama Civil Rights Monument

"Militant One"

We don't usually abide ignorance, but we will be a little patient in your case. You imply that the Confederacy was an "outlaw" nation. If that is the case, why weren't all the Confederate leaders, from Davis on down, arrested and charged with treason? The reason is that the secession of the Confederate states was entirely legal and Constitutional, as ruled by US Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in July, 1865. Furthermore, the yankees-Union-Federals, what ever you choose to call
them, pursued an illegal and unconstitutional war against the South. Lincoln threatened to disband the Supreme Court when the justices refused to sanction his ILLEGAL action of raising troops to invade the South. Furthermore, by using Federal soldiers against legally constituted states in secession, Lincoln violated the Posse Comitatus by using the army against civilians. But no doubt in your feeble little mind, might always makes right. So again, when King and his gang set out from Selma on their march, they were warned that they were violating the law. So the US government stepped in and aided King in his lawlessness, once again trampling on the laws of a sovereign
Southern State.

MY RESPONSE:

Talk about a fraudulent explanation. They should have been hanged! However, Lincoln thought that he was doing what was right by not ordering the traitors to be put to death. The lack of logic and thought of you rebuttle makes it abundantly clear why there will never be any peace in this
country. You can't stand the fact that for all of your lies, revisions, and half-truths, you still can't change history! Salomon Chase! Please! Some other Supreme court knucklehead said that blacks had no rights that a white man had to respect. Please find someone with a brain to respond to me next time because it's charlatans like you that make my job easy! King and his gang? The real truth is the white southern neo-confederate racists such as you have never had anything, but hate and anger for black folk, but that's okay because you will reap what you sow tenfold. So crawl
back in your hole and drink your "bitter dregs!"

:: DM1 9/02/2002 06:58:00 AM [+] ::
...

Old Rant to Fox News on Tony Snow, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, et al. (Nov 2001):

I know you boys think you have gems in the good ol' boys mentioned above. To label them pompous, arrogant jerks, does a disservice to pompous, arrogant jerks. It seems like the motto of your station is to hate all things liberal and democratic. I dare say that their views and opinions are not new or surprising. I just finished watching a rerun of "All in the Family" and the arguments that were debated on the show 30 years ago are still being debated. The funny thing about tv show scripts is that you can write and arrange the scripts so that your point of view always prevails. Unlike "All in the Family" the scripts that the gentlemen above use are old, tired, and dated. What's really funny is that before any of them open their mouths I always know what they are going to say. They have a problem with liberals, feminists, gays, unions, and last but not least the Clintons. The crowning moment was watching Bill O'Reilly try and preach to Geraldo Rivera about his past. Dollar Bill (The Multimillion Common Guy) couldn't hold Geraldo's jock----- (you know the rest). Geraldo doesn't need Dollar Bill or any of the others mentioned above to smooth his way. If the Fox News audience doesn't like Geraldo, I don't think Geraldo needs any help in responding to his detractors. A "no spin zone?", if O'Reilly could keep his mouth shut long enough to allow his guests to respond then I guess the description is apt. That he never gives those who disagree with him a chance to talk speaks volumes about his own inadequacies. The rest of the lot is cut from the same cloth and I suspect that Fox News will be around a long time just like "All in the Family". Unlike "All in the Family" there is nothing original about the good ol' boys. Just a bunch of rich angry white guys pointing a finger at every thing and every body who have the nerve to disagree.

:: DM1 9/02/2002 06:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Washington Post:

I used to get the Washington Times, but they would never stop printing any rumor about Bill Clinton so long as it was vicious and nasty. I now find your newspaper to be useless, but for a different reason. Bush's and Cheney's corporate careers demand closer scrutiny in the current environment. A great deal was made about their business experiences. Bush touted his management experiences when running for president. I have examined the record, and all I see is a failure who was fortunate to be the son of a president. Cheney it seems spent a lot of time doing business with Iraq. If Bill Clinton's penis is worth a $40 million investigation surely the actions of Bush and Cheney are worth closer examination. Thus far I find your newspaper very lacking in getting to the heart of these issues. I guess you don't want to be accused of "liberal bias". One more thing you don't have to worry about is being mistaken for the newspaper you used to be. You have become a "toothless tiger" scared of your own shadow. This current administration is running the country into the ground and I don't see the Washington Post asking the tough questions or investigating possible criminal activities by the president and vice president. Your newspaper is no longer worth the money I pay. If you ever get your spine back, I may resubscribe. However, with Ms. Graham gone, I don't think you have the character or integrity to do your duty as it should be done. Where have you gone, Bob Woodward?

:: DM1 9/02/2002 06:40:00 AM [+] ::
...

MilitantOne (Guest)

Re: Osama, Osama, whereforth art thou?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there no one out there who will stand up and say very loudly, "Where is Osama and what have you done with him?" to the Bush Administration and the right wing who excoriated Bill Clinton for not doing enough to capture him. Now that Bush has been ineffective the chorus of criticism against Bill clinton has died down. Democrats make the case! The purpose of the incursion into Afghanistan was to seek out Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. There has been a dearth of Al Quaeda body bags and no Osama. To kill a snake you make destroy the head. The Bush Administration fails time and time again:the economy, tariffs, budget deficits, war, Middle East tensions. Yet, only Al Gore has shown the courage to stand up and say that "the emperor has no clothes!" If the democrats do not make gains in the House and Senate this year they have only themselves to blame. Tom and Dick stand up and ask George, "Where is Osama?"

:: DM1 8/27/2002 07:33:00 PM [+] ::
...

Blast From the Past

October 2001 response to some Knucklehead from the Washington Times on "Clinton-Hating".

It is very disgraceful the way you and other "Clinton Haters" can not let it go. My memory is not as short as your integrity. As I remember things, every time Clinton engaged in any retaliation or attack against terrorists or dictators, people like you said that he was trying to divert attention from his scandals. So much for unity and standing behind your president. Let's go back to Kosovo. Here is an excerpt from an article dated 4/29/99:

"WASHINGTON -- In a sharp challenge to President Clinton, the House voted Wednesday to bar the President from sending ground troops to Yugoslavia without Congressional approval and then on a tie vote refused to support NATO air strikes against Serbia.
The votes came during a day of heated and sometimes anguished speeches that showcased deep divisions in Congress over the escalating conflict in the Balkans. The all-day session marked the first formal Congressional debate since NATO began its bombing campaign on March 24 to drive the forces of the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, out of Kosovo. The Senate had voted on March 23 to approve the air strikes.

The House voted 249 to 180 to require the President to seek Congressional approval for ground forces. Forty-five Democrats and an independent joined 203 Republicans to support the measure. Sixteen Republicans and 164 Democrats opposed the bill.

But the surprise came when the House finished its deliberations this evening by failing to pass a Democratic resolution intended to give symbolic support to the President's air campaign. The measure failed in a tie vote of 213 to 213 even though Speaker J. Dennis Hastert threw his support behind it. In all, 31 Republicans broke with their party to back the air campaign and 26 Democrats voted against it. "

Wait there's more. How about May 1999:

WASHINGTON (May 2, 1999 5:34 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton welcomed Yugoslavia's dramatic release Sunday of three U.S. soldiers, but his administration rebuffed a request for a pause in the airstrikes and for a meeting between Slobodan Milosevic and the president until the Serb leader agrees to all NATO demands.

"This gesture ... of goodwill cannot obliterate or overcome the stench of evil and death that has been inflicted in those killing fields in Kosovo," Defense Secretary William Cohen said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cohen and other U.S. officials sounded a hardline, suggesting Milosevic had simply engaged in a "PR stunt" in releasing the American prisoners. But the administration was coming under pressure from a variety of sources to seek a diplomatic end to the crisis - from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who arranged the soldiers' release, to two top Republican leaders in Congress.

"As Jesse Jackson would say, 'Give peace a chance here,"' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "There seems to be some momentum. There's seems to be an opportunity. We should seize this moment."

House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, told "Fox News Sunday" that Clinton should meet Milosevic to negotiate an end to "this failed policy of bombing for diplomacy."

How about this one:


In Washington, some congressmen are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from the Balkans. "The U.S. involvement should end now. We never should have been involved in the first place," a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told CNS.

Paul and 17 other Members of Congress – two Democrats and fifteen Republicans – are suing President Clinton in federal court for allegedly violating the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act by ordering air strikes in Yugoslavia.

House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay was also blunt on the bombing, as he addressed the House today.

"I don't think we should be bombing in the Balkans. I don't think the present military presence should be maintained," said DeLay.

DeLay also reiterated his support for a measure introduced by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) calling for the withdrawal of "any U.S. forces presently engaged in the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia."

Here's another one:

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War.

For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public.

Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought.

''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ''We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.''

Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties.

They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton.

For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it.

Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace.

Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action.

The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex.

Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote.

That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia.

In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor.

''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote.

But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out.

In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees.

That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week.

''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance.

The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia.

The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24.

The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress.

Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate.

Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War.

In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist.

That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War.

Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era.

Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending. (END/IPS/jl/mk/99)

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War.

For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public.

Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought.

''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ''We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.''

Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties.

They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton.

For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it.

Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace.

Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action.

The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex.

Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote.

That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia.

In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor.

''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote.

But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out.

In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees.

That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week.

''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance.

The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia.

The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24.

The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress.

Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate.

Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War.

In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist.

That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War.

Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era.

Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending. (END/IPS/jl/mk/99)

So as you can see Clinton was opposed by the republican congress at almost every turn. The likes of Tom Delay and Trent Lott did as much to further the cause of those who want to destroy America by thwarting Clinton at almost every turn. Don't worry, I will send you more examples concerning Clinton's fight on terrorism. The feckless nature of the republican congress concerning Kosovo is still vivid for me so I used it as my first argument. So don't tell me what Clinton would have done. Instead tell me about the unpatriotic nature of the republican congress in supporting the president when he needed them to rally around him and the country! I understand that this is impossible for people like you. Facts be damned!

:: DM1 8/23/2002 12:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Bush/Cheney Supporters:

Dear Sheep,

You are reaping what you sowed. Incompetence, erosion of civil liberties, economic unstability, and on and on. Keep telling yourselves that he is doing a "wonderful" job. I guess only liberals and black folk should be held to some standards. Let's see a black kid trying to get into college must be "qualified" yet you voted for a man who has never had any meaningful accomplishments save for the last name of Bush. Well he is not his father and he is wholly unqualified for the job. "Keep looking for the pony in a room full of sh-t." How many times did Bush supporters acknowledge that Al Gore was smarter. How many times were they dismissve of Gore as a "know-it-all". Was it in April that Bush was seen carrying the book "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg. For all of his lack of knowledge about everything, he's reading "BIAS" instead of "pick any scholarly subject. Basically, with the elevation of Bush to the presidency, being mediocre, white and conservative with a famous last name, means that you squandered any credibility on what makes anybody qualified for anything. Disgraceful, yes. Surprising, no. I knew that you were frauds all the time.

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/17/2002 07:55:00 PM [+] ::
...

Old Memo to Editor - Washington Times Editorial Page:

Subject: Emmett Tyrell's rant on Bill Clinton
(You can pick any of his columns)

Editor,

Talk about nerve! R Emmett Tyrrell has done it again. For a man who knows that he did every thing he could to derail Bill Clinton, Mr. Tyrrell should just sink back into the ooze. "Had he told the truth" he still would have been hounded by the like of R.E.T. At no time did he or anyone in his cabal support President Clinton. At no time did he or his kind rally behind their president. No they just waged a "jihad" for eight years and detracted their readers from what was really important. Imagine if the republican Congress at the time had spent as much time or terrorism as they did on Clinton's sex life. Imagine is they had heeded Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen's Op-ed piece on terrorism and the imminent threat. Imagine if folks like Tyrrell had supported Bill Clinton one-tenth as much as democrats are supporting Bush. Granted we are having a crisis, but we had some crises during the Clinton Administration. Yet, the pages of the Washington Times continued to attack the former president with a zeal that bordered on pathological. Bill Clinton lied about oral sex plain and simple. That fact has caused his problems. He was not cited legally for "Whitewater, Travelgate, and the rest. Now Bill Clinton probably lied to protect his own hide, but he also did not want to give his enemies the satisfaction. In the end, he should have told the truth about the Lewinsky matter regardless of the embarassment.

That Tyrrell and his ilk continue to bash Clinton almost a year after he left office shows me the hatred and bitterness that they have always harbored. Sure Clinton had crooked friends and a lot of them, but as I recall Clinton left office millions of dollars in debt. Yeah, what a smart crook! I have some crooked friends and while I keep my distance I have had an association with them. If I was president, the media would be sure to note the connection whether I had had contact with them yesterday or several years ago. No if Mr. Tyrrell and his kind don't like Clinton for his association with criminals then show some consistency. Both Bush and Cheney have been arrested several times in their lives for various offenses. As a mattern of fact, I believe that their "rap sheets" are longer than either Clinton's or Gore's. I know this because if it was not so the Washington Times would have reported that fact! Should Cheney and Bush be shunned and ridiculed? I don't think so and neither does Tyrrell. If he persists in deriding Bill Clinton then be consistent all the way around. That last request is much to difficult for you because that requires integrity. Why don't you "tell the truth" about the "Arkansas Project". Be an example to Bill Clinton. Show him the way. Let him see a "real" man come clean. This is a tall order and one that I am sure you are not up to!

By the way, I am a republican and I support my president. I think that Bush has grown into the job and is finding his way. I still believe his domestic policy and his unilateralist to foreigh policy is and was wrong, but as an American, I support action against terrorists and those countries that harbor and support them. I believe that one can disagree with either Clinton or Bush without being vicious and nasty, but that's just me. I could be wrong!

:: DM1 8/11/2002 05:18:00 PM [+] ::
...

MEMO to Charles Black - Republican Hack:

Charlie,

I read the CNN Crossfire transcript for August 8th. Paul Begala spoke about two subsidiaries of Haliburton that were doing business with Iraq while Dick Cheney was CEO. You replied as if you knew nothing about this fact. Now I know that you are not a stupid man so I have a suggestion. Why don't you do your homework and then go talk to Cheney and ask him to explain himself. I doubt that you will take me up on my offer because I don't think you want to know the truth. Folks like you love talking about a lack of character when it comes to Bill Clinton. For all of the accusations made about him, even he didn't do business with Iraq. Being a shrill for a morally bankrupt individual is a disgrace and you ought to be ashamed!. Oh yeah I forgot I'm talking about Dick Cheney not Bill Clinton. Character doesn't matter! Lest you think that I am totally bias, I think you would do better supporting true men of character like Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, and John McCain. Think about it.

A True Republican,

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/11/2002 05:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

MEMO to Congressman Bill Thomas (Cal-R):

Bill,

I must commend you for getting that twerp, Brian Robin fired. Imagine him questioning "YOU". I guess he thought that this was a true democracy and that he could voice his opinion. Yeah, yeah, I know. He sent the email through the Times's internal email system. We all know that a person who uses the company's email for personal use should be fired. I am sure no other employee has ever sent a personal email through the system. Yeah, Bill you really showed him! By the way I am sending this email through a private line, so I don't end up like Brian Robin. What is really pathetic is that I too am a republican, and I spend a great deal of time separating true republican ideology from that of folks like you. I served four years in the Army and was honorably discharged. I did not commit myself for those four year so people like you could have someone fired for expressing their opinion. If anything you confirmed his views. I am a very glad that you do not represent my district or my state!

Sincerely,

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/11/2002 05:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Washington Times on Dick Armey saying no to national ID cards:

For once Dick Armey has it right, but I notice the editorial writer did not mention the group responsible for eroding our liberties. No, it's not Bill Clinton. It's the crowd that currently occupies the White House, and the Times silence is as they say "deafening". Credibility is not always gained by criticizing your enemies it is gained by looking honestly at your friends. The Times has been a friend to George Bush, but not much of a friend. Can the country be run anymore incompetently than it already is? It says a lot that most observers agree that Al Gore was smarter than George Bush, but your crowd supported Bush anyway. Whatever happened to the "best qualified"? Oh yeah I forgot, that only applies to black folk trying to get into college or trying to get a job. You get what you paid for and I hope you have gotten your money's worth from this whollly unqualified "appointed" president. Knowing the character of the crowd that runs the editorial page, I assume that you will continue to prop up this failed presidency and continue to blame Bush's incompetence on Bill Clinton. So much for personal responsibility. I would leave my name and phone number, but I know that ol' Wes and Tony wouldn't have the guts to print this comment!

:: DM1 7/20/2002 08:53:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Fox:

You know folks would probably be even more supportive of Bush's domestic agenda if you didn't have the loud mouths like Hannity constantly dividing folks between liberal and conservative. What is really ridiculous is that the folks like Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and Tom Davis who constantly criticize Tom Daschle as not being a team player or at worst unpatriotic never served one day in the military. Let's not forget Dick Cheney who received four student deferments during the Vietnam War. I believe that Daschle served his country in the Air Force. If you want moral clarity tell those who never served when they had a chance to sit down and shut up. And this rant comes from a republican. Granted I think the democrats have some problems when it comes to the issues, I get even more upset when folks who never served start pointing fingers at veterans like Tom Daschle as if they have the moral high ground. Just for the record I served in the Army from 1981 to 1985.

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:59:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Fox:

You know folks would probably be even more supportive of Bush's domestic agenda if you didn't have the loud mouths like Hannity constantly dividing folks between liberal and conservative. What is really ridiculous is that the folks like Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and Tom Davis who constantly criticize Tom Daschle as not being a team player or at worst unpatriotic never served one day in the military. Let's not forget Dick Cheney who received four student deferments during the Vietnam War. I believe that Daschle served his country in the Air Force. If you want moral clarity tell those who never served when they had a chance to sit down and shut up. And this rant comes from a republican. Granted I think the democrats have some problems when it comes to the issues, I get even more upset when folks who never served start pointing fingers at veterans like Tom Daschle as if they have the moral high ground. Just for the record I served in the Army from 1981 to 1985.

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:55:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to The Washington Times:

I really wonder about the folks that sit on the editorial board. Why don't you rename the paper "The Republican Conservative Times" If there was ever an "American Taliban" it is surely your paper. Lest we forget that Bush lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. Your paper crucified Clinton, not for winning, but for not getting at least 50% of the vote. Not only did Bush not get at least 50% of the vote he came in second with respect to all votes counted. When evidence came out in the many "scandals" surrounding Clinton, your paper turned a deaf ear, you even printed rape allegations on your front page about him. Your "jihad" against Clinton is about as pathetic as your lack of critical analysis of the 2000 Election. Remember that prior to 9/11 Bush was hovering at 50% in the polls. To say that the voters put the 2000 election behind them prior to 9/11 shows the disconnect that the "elites" in your paper have with most of America. Now unlike the total lack of support that most republicans gave Cinton, the democrats are supporting Bush almost totally. But beware, his support is based on the attack of 9/11 and the need to exact justice, revenge, or whatever you want to call it. His domestic policies are still wrongheaded and not well thought out. His foreign policy team other than Colin Powell, who he failed to listen to prior to 9/11, is failing him. His unilateralist polcies in the first six months of the 2001 created unnecessary problems when Bush had to go back to the same world community after 9/11 for support. No, our support of Bush is an extension of our support for the ideals and freedoms of our country. Now if folks such as yourself had shown Clinton the same type of support maybe we would not be dealing with the bitterness and hatred that exists against us today.

Also, folks in your paper are going out of their way to blame Clinton for 9/11. Well Bush had been president for 8 months when this happened. A report outlining terrorist threats to the US had been presented to him in the Spring of 2001. He did nothing to address the concerns raised until after the 9/11 attack. Your paper preaches personal accountability and responsibility. It would be a good start for you to practice what you preach.

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

Letter to Bruce Wilson UK

Dear Bruce,

The reason why you have been receiving so much negative email is that the truth hurts. Americans are notorious enablers when it comes to their presidents! To american conservatives George W. Bush is not William Jefferson Clinton. It is as simple as that. The american press and the democrats have for the most part rolled over for George W. Bush. You have the courage to say what a lot of americans are thinking, but are unable (afraid?) to express publicly. You are quite correct about the effect of September 11th on Bush's presidency. Examples: terrorist alerts that include every mode of transportation and delivery system known to man, a threat assessment chart that has remained at "Yellow?" despite warnings almost daily of imminent terrorist attacks, John Ashcroft (enough said!), The Patriot Act, Dissenting opinions ridiculed as unpatriotic, an ability to stand before the American People and have no clue as to how to articulate a vision that is a true path to peace, incompetence rewarded as virtue. It goes on! There is a method to the madness: 2004. The conservatives want to remake the judiciary among other goals. This is one of the primary reasons for their backing of George W. Bush. Believe me, in private they will admit that he is not the brightest bulb, but he was electable. They will defend Bush to the very end and the current beginnings of a police state in America is their way of controlling events. Beware of your head my friend! Keep telling the truth because we sure need someone to stand up and shout" "The Emperor has no clothes!" Good Day.

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Representative Ganske


I find it disgraceful that you could suggest that in some way Senator Harkin does not share your degree of patriotism. I researched your biography and his. Guess what Senator Harkin served several years in the Navy as a jet pilot. I am also a republican and find your questioning of his patriotism to be very sad and believe me it reflects poorly on you. I am just glad that you don't represent my state. I may even send Senator Harkin a donation to let him know that not all republicans are as ridiculous as you. By the way, according to your biography, you are a gifted surgeon and are a LTC in the Army Reserve, you do not do the uniform any good when you unfairly attack a veteran. If you want to question his opposition to the flag burning amendment fine, but to question his patriotism well let's hope that this is not indicative of your campaign strategy. I hope that you are a bigger man than that. Just to let you know, I served four years in the Army and I respect Senator Harkin as a veteran even if I may not agree with some of his positions.

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:41:00 PM [+] ::
...

I see that blood is in the water. King George is feeling the heat. To all concerned; "Beware of your heads my friends!" Enemies of the State! The conservatives are not about to roll over. Let's hope that all of you have the stomach for the coming battle

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

It's time for republicans to stand up an say, "The emperor has no clothes!" Subtract 9/11 from the ledger and the Bush Adminstration's record is dubious at best. Like many companies with the inability to truly be profitable, the Bush team has resorted to leveraging 9/11 to cover it's "losses". Folks are always talking about selecting the "best qualified". Well that maxim sure was buried by the results of the 2000 election. What has resulted is what you get when someone who is appointed to the presidency is wholly unqualified. One last thing with all of the issues facing Bush and the U.S. how did Bush find time to read "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg? I would have been more reassured if he had been reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Just a few observations from a disgusted REP!

:: DM1 7/01/2002 01:06:00 AM [+] ::
...