Bernhard,just reading through some of the titles of those articles seems to verify an open PR war rift between the CIA (& State, & Nato allies et al) and the neocons (& Israel MI, Aipac et al)

Posted by: x | Jul 21 2004 14:31 utc | 4

Juan Cole has an excellent posting about the PsyOps for the coming US/Israeli/Iran war.
BTW: The collection of headlines above is not to implicite reading of all those articles. Hey – these contradictions ARE funny!
If you want to read some, the fifth from the bottom and the last one are the really interesting links 😉

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 21 2004 15:42 utc | 6

Fran – THAT´s the reason to attack them!

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 21 2004 16:20 utc | 8

There was this UN Resolution agains Israel building a wall on Palestinian ground.
Voting against the resolution with the United States and Israel were Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
Where is Palau?

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 21 2004 16:44 utc | 10

defense is the responsibility of the US; under a Compact of Free Association between Palau and the US, the US military is granted access to the islands for 50 years

Posted by: NEPAJim | Jul 21 2004 17:03 utc | 12

Excellent set of links. Thanks. Of course moving on to the next member of the Axis of Evil has been coming for a while.
I believe that there is a high probability that we end up in war with Iran whether we want to or not. Israel is clearly going to try to take out the reactors. They may tell before hand, but for sure they won’t ask us. And when they attack, we will be pulled in – you know to defend Israel’s right to exist, free the Iranians etc., etc.,
This war will occur at a time of Sharon’s choosin no matter who is in the WH.

Posted by: tgs | Jul 21 2004 17:04 utc | 14

@tgs
Good post.
What would the Israelis wish?
A two fronted war with the US and the Israelis fighting east and the US fighting east?
The fact that Turkey has chilled relationships may speak wonders.
Busy as hell today (the auditors) but I did catch one picture of the Jordanian King kissing Allawi (Arabs do this) and I wonder……….

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 21 2004 18:58 utc | 16

There is a great (but long) interview at Salon:
Can Israel be saved?
Richard Ben Cramer talks about “How Israel Lost,” his exploration of how the occupation of Palestinian land has corrupted the soul of the Jewish state he loves.
—
By Gary Kamiya
one catching excerp:

Kayima: When I was in Israel I could say things far more easily about the political scene and the conflict to Israelis than I could to a group of American Jews I didn’t know.
Cramer: Right. I don’t have as many problems among the Israelis as I do among the American Jews. Because we don’t have to argue about what’s happened. They know what’s happened — they’re living what’s happened. They know that the current situation is untenable. It’s the American Jews, who are largely unburdened by fact, with whom one has to start at the beginning. And there is a range of opinion that is permitted and legitimate in Israel that is far broader than American Jewish organizations will permit.

Lots more to read and learn in that piece.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 21 2004 19:54 utc | 18

@test
you’re toast!

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 21 2004 20:52 utc | 20

@ cloned poster
Actually, I think I left out the most likely option – the Israeli’s tell us they are going to take out the nuclear sites and we pay them big bucks to allow us to take them out instead. Remember the 10billion they requested and, I believe, got for staying out of the Iraq invasion?
We wouldn’t want Israel to sully its reputation any further after all. The US, perceived universally as disinterested would have a much better chance of dealing with the ensuing public relations disaster (not to mention the military disaster).
What I can’t figure out is would Iran respond. And if yes, what kind of damage could they actually do.
Another puzzler is Israel’s involvement with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. I am not puzzled at all about what they are up to – trying to destabilize both Syria and Iran (though they are jeopardizing their relatively good relations with Turkey). What’s weird is that it is so not in our interest. Clearly, it is further destabalizing Iraq – as well as drawing Turkey, Syria and Iran closer (no mean feat).
One thing that is clear as day, however, disaster looms.

Posted by: tgs | Jul 21 2004 21:20 utc | 22

Jim Lobe: Another square-off over Iran
Good overview of what are the different currents in the US about Iran – more optimistic than I am – I hope he is right.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 21 2004 21:56 utc | 24

@ghost – correct
feel like I am spaming today, but will go to bed soon, so my last one here
Newsweek: More Evidence of an Iran-Al Qaeda Connection
– the “Evidence” is:
Some of the bad guys did go from Hamburg, Germany, via Amsterdam, via Teheran, to Afghanistan late 2000. They have had no stamps from Iran in their passports which is supposed to be proof that some Iranians cooperated with them, but which is not suppose to be proof that they just skipped over a 600 miles of a rough mountainious border to Afghanistan without a passport stamp.
Now Netherland has some nuclear reactors, Germany has more plus a full nuclear cycle, Iran has none. If Iran was closer to the 911 hijackers than Iraq, the Netherlands are even closer and the Germans are in the bulls eye. Hey, those guys did attend my old University. That should make me a target. Mr. Leeden, when will you bomb me?
(The road I live on has nice old 100+ years old houses and some relativly ugly 60´s buildings. Those are where the bombs landed in a stupid senseless imoral bombing at a time where the winner of that war was already determined. Some 60,000 civilian dead in two bombing nights.)/rant

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 21 2004 22:29 utc | 26

@Bernard:
My eyes glazed over before I got to the last on your list. Then I read both articles.
In my experience, Iranians and Thais are real good at the sport.Thais make good trainers too–I remember fondly Dr. Tong(17 years old, but possessing the curative abilities of the ages).
And keep on mentioning football occasionally.
Just senile old Flashy, remembering.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 21 2004 23:34 utc | 28

Just step over here sir, don’t want you boarding that flight unless we can be sure you’ve got your box cutters with you
9/11 video shows Flight 77 hijackers being searched after setting off metal detectors at Dulles Airport

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 1:01 utc | 30

Illuminating exchange over at redstate.org. Taken from “A Neocon Throws in the Towel” comment thread:
Commenter 1: The idea that has been in mind lately: What if the question is not whether Iraq is capable of democracy, but whether she wants it? What simple pious man (of any religion) would want the democracy that we in the decadent West peddle?
Commenter 2: All of them.
Commenter 1: Why? Why is this assumed? Granted, nearly anything is preferable to Hussein’s regime, but why do we assume that everyone wants democracy? Might they not prefer a form of government that enshrines the hierarchical structures that tribal socities know well? Might they not prefer theocracy?
Commenter 3: Who cares what they want? I pay the U.S. goverment to organize the world to suit my interests (or as best a facsimile of that state as electoral politics can manage.) If our security and/or wealth is enhanced by enforcing Western-style institutions until they take, then so be it. I have little doubt that most Germans and Japanese circa 1944 had very little desire to have new political structures forced on them from the outside at gunpoint (or bombpoint, as the case may be), regardless of their feelings on the regime in power. American interests first…
Commenter 4: Does this premise apply equally?
If the EU or China become economically and subsequently militarily dominant in 75 years time, will this doctrine apply to them if they were to impose a form of government upon us?
Commenter 3: It will…regardless of whether we’d like it to or not, or whether we took advantage of our own power or not. Don’t be naive. But the corollary is that big fish tend not to eat nearly-as-big fish, in any case. Else we’d impose appropriate governments on China and France tomorrow. :^) The key is to take the opportunity to make the world as safe for America as we can, while we can.
[Egads.]

Posted by: Pat | Jul 22 2004 1:56 utc | 32

Who funds AIPAC?
Regarding Richard Ben Cramer and his comments about the political spectrum in Israel vs. that amongst American Jews, it’s AIPAC and those behind them that keep this neocon ball rolling, and give Sharon the US support he brags about all the time.

Posted by: x | Jul 22 2004 3:45 utc | 34

Aaargh– wrong link above! Here it is again:
Richard Perle’s Musings

Posted by: x | Jul 22 2004 3:55 utc | 36

The good news is that Iraqis can’t go on and on about Abu Ghraib anymore. The bad news is that they can truthfully say that torture was routinely carried out everywhere
Reports detail that torture was widespread throughout Iraq

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 4:20 utc | 38

PS re American Jews and the political spectrum on attitudes toward Israeli policies and Sharon:
There are many liberal-minded Jewish American organizations that try to present an alternative view to the politicians and to the public to that of AIPAC. Unfortunately they have not had a lot of success breaking into that monolithic projection. Here are a couple of them:
Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
Tikkun
Americans for Peace Now
Gush Shalom

For a comprehensive list of many Jewish organizations, both in Israel and around the world (including the US) see this site
Ethnic politics in the US often seems to take a distinctly nationalistic tone that you won’t find in the “home” country. This is not unique to Jewish Americans. Often one finds that those whose grandparents perhaps emigrated to the US have a far more conservative view of the “home country” than their counterparts who did not leave, unless of course those here in the US are part of an ongoing political struggle back home.

Posted by: x | Jul 22 2004 4:59 utc | 40

apologies again, the Tikkun link doesn’t work right, and it’s a significant lobbying organization that tries to present an alternate point of view to that of AIPAC:
Tikkun

Posted by: x | Jul 22 2004 5:05 utc | 42

Hmmmmmmm, the oil pipeline
http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=36385

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 22 2004 5:41 utc | 44

@koreyel:
“Perhaps Bernhard could create a thread to tabulate votes and we could go on record with our predictions.”
Capital idea. That would be like a private sector predictive futures market, to replace the one Admiral Pointy tried to create for the government.
We could finance this site by selling our predictions to the government.
But we should think real hard about the name and acronym of our think tank first.
Lot of organization to be done yet.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 22 2004 8:51 utc | 46

@anna
The vote is already done:

In language similar to the prewar resolution on Iraq, a recent House resolution authorized the use of “all appropriate means” to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry — terminology often used to approve preemptive military force. Reflecting the growing anxiety on Capitol Hill about Iran, it passed 376 to 3.

U.S. Faces a Crossroads on Iran Policy
I do estimate the chance of an attack on Iran within the next 12 month at 90%.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 22 2004 9:52 utc | 48

The US military – where the only rule is that there are no rules
US military admits it got Afghan prisoner from bounty hunters
So those guys have nothing to do with the US government eh? And their claims to have been in contact with Pentagon officials are bogus eh? Right! Perhaps an understanding of the list of the laws that the US is willing not to break, although brief, might save the world its disgust at each new revelation. As for the moral high ground, well, it seems that the US has lost its footing.

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 10:47 utc | 50

Rogue states that provide a haven for terrorists or assist terrorists to promote their propaganda and messages of hate must be severely dealt with
America hosts 76 percent of Islamic terrorist Websites
Forget Iran – invade Canada and the USA! What do you mean, you can’t?

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 11:35 utc | 52

@Nemo:
“Rogue states that provide a haven for terrorists or assist terrorists to promote their propaganda and messages of hate must be severely dealt with”
I think, Prime Minister Bernard should go to Washington on a state visit , point out the dangerous insurgency we are fighting against the trolls, and request financial aid.(a variation of the Duchy of Grand Finwick Gambit).
They’d probably give him a couple $BN, just so they would know the Heart of Old Europe was safe.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 22 2004 12:04 utc | 54

#Missing Bulgarian found?
Another headless body found in River Tigris

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 12:29 utc | 56

Looks like Johnny Appleseed has been busy with those few bad apples
US admits to 94 prisoner abuse cases in Afghanistan and Iraq

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 16:39 utc | 58

“I do estimate the chance of an attack on Iran within the next 12 month at 90%.”
Bernhard
Any ideas on what form the attack will take? Bombing campaign? Full scale invasion? By the USA alone? USA and Israel?
Are there any proxy forces who could be any more than a minor annoyance to Tehran?

Posted by: tgs | Jul 22 2004 16:53 utc | 60

I don’t want to alarm anyone – but do you think this might be a precaution against a retaliatory strike from Iran?
Israel to issue anti-radiation pills to citizens

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 18:12 utc | 62

In language similar to the prewar resolution on Iraq, a recent House resolution authorized the use of “all appropriate means” to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry — terminology often used to approve preemptive military force. Reflecting the growing anxiety on Capitol Hill about Iran, it passed 376 to 3.
Jeez, this is like watching a train wreck. In slo mo. And not being able to do anything about it.
Seems like it is time to replay that video clip of the Shrub strugging to articulate the “fool me once” aphorism. No typographical convention can convey the suppressed, strangled scream in which I I say Don’t these people ever LEARN?

Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 22 2004 18:20 utc | 64

Regnum Crucis, at blogspot, is the foreign/defense affairs weblog of Dan Darling, who’s currently doing an internship at AEI. He’s also the driving force behind the Winds of Change weblog. Sure, he’s in the neocon camp (and a big fan of Michael Ledeen), but I check in once a week anyway to see if there’s anything interesting. His latest post has a few noteworthy items:
I’m also quite impressed at how fast al-Qaeda was able to forge disaffected members of over a half dozen Pakistani jihadi groups into a workable and subordinate coalition to aim at the Musharraf regime…
(G)iven the amount of in-fighting that appears to have occurred among the member groups of the International Front in Pakistan alone I’m quite amazed that they were able to come as close as they did towards deposing General Musharraf…
On the issue of Iran/al-Qaeda connections that I see has popped back into the news again, I’m not exactly sure why this is such a great surprise to anyone… as anybody who has even remotely been following where al-Qaeda’s leadership has regrouped over the better part of the last several years should know that at the very least Iran is harboring the bulk of the surviving al-Qaeda leadership. [I have yet to see this confirmed by credible sources.] I would also note that the majority of the “hawks” on this particular issue are not favoring a full-scale attack on Tehran, as for better or worse the decision to go to war in Iraq took that option off the table for the short-term.

Posted by: Pat | Jul 22 2004 18:26 utc | 66

@pat
On the issue of Iran/al-Qaeda connections that I see has popped back into the news again, I’m not exactly sure why this is such a great surprise to anyone… as anybody who has even remotely been following where al-Qaeda’s leadership has regrouped over the better part of the last several years should know that at the very least Iran is harboring the bulk of the surviving al-Qaeda leadership. [I have yet to see this confirmed by credible sources.]
This is nonsense in my view, and your last sentence seems to confirm this. Arab Sunni Wahabbi and Persian Shia have been fighting for hundereds of years – there is not a bit of common interest there. From Juan Cole:

In Afghan politics, 1996-2002, at the time it was dominated by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Iran was allied with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Iran was trying to overthrow the Taliban and crush them and al-Qaeda. …

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 22 2004 18:52 utc | 68

Bernhard, I agree with you. But I decided to include Dan’s assertion of al Qaeda-Iran ties as the lead-in to his comment on the prospect of a full-on war with Iran, demonstrating that even among those who consistently peddle the al Qaeda-Iran connection, there is an understanding that such a war simply is not feasible in the near future.

Posted by: Pat | Jul 22 2004 19:35 utc | 70

A email from 21st Century Democrats

ENDING THE REAGAN REVOLUTION
Ronald Reagan made ‘liberal’ a dirty word, his self-styled revolution laid the groundwork for the modern dominance of the conservative movement in America. Reagan’s ideology was based on a fundamental corruption of the concept of patriotism and so it is time to end the revolution.
Patriotism is defined as love of country. Country can be defined physically in terms of its places or culturally in terms of its people. On the first count liberals are patriotic because they love America’s places, they fight to protect our environment whereas conservatives want to destroy for dollars. On the second count liberals are patriotic because they love America’s people, they fight to protect them whereas conservatives are concerned with increasing their own power and wealth. In terms of national security, liberals understand that continued progress is the only way to keep America strong, that the conservative
idea of taking America back to an earlier time is an illusion and a dangerous one at that. In terms of the economy, liberals understand that socialism dictates equality of outcome whereas patriotism dictates equality of opportunity, the efficient function of free and fair markets being necessary for continued prosperity.
Conservatives are selfish, they are not patriotic in terms of America’s places, they are not patriotic in terms of America’s people. Somehow or other liberals allowed Reagan and other conservatives to capture the flag, to grab and hold the mantle of patriotism, cloaking themselves in righteousness while pursuing selfishness. The revolution must end, the clarifications must be made whenever and wherever possible so that patriotism can be restored and elections won.

Posted by: ck | Jul 22 2004 19:44 utc | 72

@Nemo – Hmmm, a piquant bouquet, just a hint of that je ne sais quoi that indicates a warm southern earthiness – perhaps a 1982 California?
“Waiter, this water tastes like piss.”
Well, that’s because it is sir.”
Piss, It’s not just for drinking
Army rations rehydrated by urine

Would you eat food cooked in your own urine? Food scientists working for the US military have developed a dried food ration that troops can hydrate by adding the filthiest of muddy swamp water or even peeing on it.
The ration comes in a pouch containing a filter that removes 99.9 per cent of bacteria and most toxic chemicals from the water used to rehydrate it, according to the Combat Feeding Directorate, part of the US Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Massachusetts. This is the same organisation that created the “indestructible sandwich” that will stay fresh for three years (New Scientist print edition, 10 April 2002).
…

Ummmmmmmmm, 3 year old pissed on sandwiches. It’s what’s for lunch.

Posted by: sukabi | Jul 22 2004 21:56 utc | 74

Re: the lower photograph – apparently the source of a legend …in truth it’s his arm

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 22 2004 22:26 utc | 76

Flight 93 – the last moments
Hijackers deliberately crashed Flight 93 – passengers never made it to cockpit
Coolness versus coldness

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 23 2004 0:26 utc | 78

Hold that war until we’ve coached the defectors!
Al-Qaeda links to Iran still murky
“And hurry up and forge those documents will ya?”

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 23 2004 0:43 utc | 80

William Lind at LewRockwell.com:
…In Iraq’s civil war, the most prominent faction is what America calls Iraq’s “government.” It is, of course, not a government, because there is no state. The “government’s” goal is to recreate an Iraqi state and become a real government. What are its chances of success?
At the physical level, the “government” is undoubtedly the most powerful faction in Iraq’s civil war. It has more money and more troops than any competitor. It also has the U.S. military behind it, as we have seen recently in Fallujah, where the Iraqi “government” has approved and even provided intelligence for recent American air strikes.
But at the moral level, the Iraqi “government” is probably the weakest faction, weaker even than the elements still fighting for Saddam. The reason is that it is an American creation and puppet – a Quisling regime, formed and propped up by a now-hated invader. If it is to have any hope of legitimacy, it must cut the strings to the American puppeteer. So far, it shows no ability to do that…
Fourth Generation war theory suggests that the Iraqi “government’s” strength at the physical level and weakness at the moral level means it has already peaked. Physical strength plays its greatest role early, while the moral level works most powerfully over time. As has been true ever since Saddam fell, time is on the side of America’s enemies, and time is a powerful ally.
What are the other factions in Iraq? Both the Sunnis and the Shiites appear to be splitting into smaller, mutually hostile elements. There are indications that among the Sunnis, the secularists, who are mostly Baathists, and the Islamists are starting to go at it. Several secularist militias recently made a public announcement that they want the head (severed or otherwise) of al Qaeda’s local rep, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr’s recent war with the Americans had less to do with resisting the occupation than with positioning himself within the Shiite community. Fourth Generation theory says that once the fractioning begins in a post-state region, it continues.
The resulting civil war may still have Sunni vs. Shiite aspects; in fact, it is almost certain to include that fault line. But there will be many other fault lines as well, some within the Shiite and Sunni communities, some cutting across them. At the physical level, this works to the “government’s” advantage, in that its relative power increases. But at the moral level, virtually all the other factions have greater legitimacy than the “government.” And just as the strategic level trumps the tactical, so the moral level trumps the physical. That is one of John Boyd’s more important insights into the nature of war.
Not all King George’s bombers nor all of his men can put Mesopotamia’s Humpty together again. Since Sen. Kerry’s policy on Iraq differs from President Bush’s by only the finest of nuances, it is safe to predict that a future King John would fare no better.
July 22, 2004

Posted by: Pat | Jul 23 2004 2:47 utc | 82

Two more American homes to get visits that they have been dreading later today
Two US soldiers killed in Samarra bomb attack

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 23 2004 4:59 utc | 84

Corruption in Iraq – everybody’s been doing it
Top British engineering group admits to paying kickbacks in Iraq

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 23 2004 5:39 utc | 86

Forget all about that democracy nonsense…
Iraq’s transition to dictatorship

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 23 2004 5:48 utc | 88

And this guy too………

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 23 2004 6:22 utc | 90

From the NY Times, “Urging Swift Action, Panel Warns Deadlier Attacks Likely”
“Because of offensive actions against Al Qaeda since 9/11, and defense actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today,” the commission wrote in an executive summary of its long-awaited report, praising in particular the United States invasion that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, ending its sanctuary for Al Qaeda. “But we are not safe.”
Thomas H. Kean, the panel’s chairman and the former Republican governor of New Jersey, said at a news conference to release the report that the commission had been warned repeatedly during its investigation that “an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable – we do not have the luxury of time.”
Lemme see if I’ve got this right. We are somehow safer today, though an attack surpassing 9-11 is possible and even likely. I guess this makes sense if ‘safer’ is not, in this instance, meant to convey ‘more secure from danger, harm, or evil,’ which apparently it is not. Just as, in stating that we ‘won’ in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld does not mean that we ‘achieved success in an effort or a venture.’ That is, unless our effort in Afghanistan was intended merely to drive al Qaeda’s leadership over the border into Pakistan.

Posted by: Pat | Jul 23 2004 6:43 utc | 92

Some buildings still standing in Fallujah – US military working on the problem
US launches air strike on Fallujah

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 23 2004 7:16 utc | 94

Will someone please declare a moratorium on looming crises? We need it. Ted Galen Carpenter at the Cato Institute:
It should not be surprising if Beijing’s desire to regain Taiwan is growing more insistent. Taiwan’s status is a hot-button issue for most mainland Chinese. Even those Chinese who are not especially fond of the communist regime tend to believe that the island is rightfully part of China. From their perspective, Japan stole the province from China in 1895, and, by shielding the island militarily, the United States prevented reunification following the defeat of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces in 1949.
As the PRC grows stronger economically and militarily, it is logical that the determination to regain the lost province would also grow. Moreover, Chinese leaders suspect (with good reason) that time is not on their side. Younger Taiwanese in particular regard the mainland as an alien place and have little enthusiasm for reunification. Beijing fears that the prospect of regaining Taiwan may be lost forever if action is not taken relatively soon.
All of this puts the United States in a delicate and dangerous position. U.S. leaders repeatedly try to have it both ways. On the one hand, even the conservative Bush administration professes allegiance to a one China policy. Yet Washington also is committed to defend Taiwan if the PRC attacks the island. U.S. leaders try to stay on that diplomatic tightrope by proclaiming that they oppose any unilateral action by either side to change the status quo.
But the signs are mounting that the status quo will not be sustainable indefinitely. Rice and other Bush administration officials might wish that the problem would go away, but it is not about to do so. American leaders may soon have to change Washington’s policy on Taiwan or face the nightmare of having to honor its security commitment to the island. Time is running out.

Posted by: Pat | Jul 23 2004 7:32 utc | 96

U.S. leaders repeatedly try to have it both ways. On the one hand, even the conservative Bush administration professes allegiance to a one China policy. Yet Washington also is committed to defend Taiwan if the PRC attacks the island. U.S. leaders try to stay on that diplomatic tightrope by proclaiming that they oppose any unilateral action by either side to change the status quo.

For a pretty clear idea of what the current policy is toward China, I think you’d have to look at the Bush Family financial interests in the area. They do have interests there you know.

Posted by: sukabi | Jul 23 2004 8:20 utc | 98

If Krauthammer would publish this stupidity in Germany he would get between three month and five years of prison. (Criminal Code, Article 80a, “Goad on War of Aggression”)

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 23 2004 9:26 utc | 100