http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 17 May 2004 11:00:46 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/17/110046.php James GoldenI'm not one to write about TV shows, but I had to say something after last night's Sopranos episode. I still don't know what happened, do you? It was as if we were all dreaming for over 20 minutes, not just Tony. I got the distinct impression that they ran out of material after 9:20. Don't forget that the episode ended at 9:50!It must be so hard to keep a television show like the Sopranos going. After 14 months or so without any new episodes, the writers for Sopranos seem to have fallen down after only 10 episodes this season. Can't wait to see the last two shows of the season! Video15728@blogcritics.org Mon, 17 May 2004 11:00:46 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/07/130855.php James GoldenOne of the things I hear all of the time from the many left leaning voters I encounter on the streets of New York City is, "Anyone but Bush." It's hard to understand how you could vote for someone purely so that you can expel someone else. It's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. But then again, most who say "Anyone but Bush" usually don't have clear reasons for why Bush is a bad president. They say, "Oh well, he's an idiot," or "He screwed up the economy," or "He didn't need to go to war." All of these explanations show a lack of knowledge on each subject. Bush is clearly not an idiot, the economy is clearly on the rise, and given the amount of 20/20 hindsight going on, not going to war in Iraq might have been more troublesome for his presidency and our country than the course we have taken. But this article isn't about Bush. The notion of "Anyone but Bush" needs to be challenged, as John Kerry is simply not fit for president. 20/20 hindsight says that Howard Dean might have been a better choice, but the democrats could have had a real shot this November had they put down the radicalism, and gone with a centrist like Joe Lieberman. Instead, they hitched their wagon to John Kerry's star. It was unlikely at the time that Kerry could withstand 9 months of scrutiny, and already democrats are starting to fall out of love with this man. What did Kerry do that was so wrong? Quite a few things: Personally, I do not hold it against Kerry for protesting the war after he came back from Vietnam. It's certainly his right to express displeasure with American foreign policy, especially after serving his country and fighting for that freedom. However, appearing publicly with known communists like Jane Fonda, and accusing his fellow soldiers of wartime atrocities crosses the line of acceptable behavior. Then there is the case of Kerry discarding his ribbons, but not his medals (despite claims to the contrary, there is a difference, medals are approved and awarded on an individual basis, whereas ribbons are given to all troops for completing training and such), on the Whitehouse lawn in protest. Kerry claimed that he didn't remember the specifics of what he threw away on that day, but we know that he still has his medals. All of this gives him the appearance of a terrible commander in chief, and an even worse wartime president. And it shows - 19 of the 23 officers that Kerry served with in Vietnam, as well as ALL of his commanding officers have signed a public letter stating that Kerry is not fit for the job. Then there is the flip-flopping. "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" Kerry is quoted as saying in a recent Bush attack ad. As silly as this sounds, it is actually true. $16 billion of the $87 billion Iraqi appropriations were earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction, the rest were to cover military costs. Democrats were largely opposed to giving the Iraqi's this money outright, instead calling for a loan. Bush rightly contended that a fetal Iraqi state coming out of decades of dictatorial rule would not be that successful if it started off with a $16 billion dollar debt. Besides, we were not in Iraq for their oil, and loaning them money that they had no choice but to take would make us seem quite disingenuous. This issue ultimately caused Kerry to vote against the final bill. While I can understand his point of view, I don't agree with it. Further, when our country is at war and our soldiers need supplies, we can't be bickering over $16 billion dollars that by all rights should be a grant. Kerry charges that Bush would have vetoed the bill had the $16 billion been a loan. But the fact is that Kerry, not Bush, voted against this very important spending bill that, had it not passed, would have left our troops without the supplies they needed to survive. The flip-flopping doesn't end there. Kerry's record is rife with inconsistencies too long to list here. A common retort is that legislators rarely get elected for this very reason (the last few presidents were governors, not congressmen or senators). And it is a good reason. As bad as Kerry's past is, his platform is even worse. Kerry has gone on record saying that in his first 100 days in office, he will go on a worldwide tour apologizing for past American foreign policy, and reassure the world that we are ready to work with the U.N. again. If you have never paid attention to the dysfunctional family that is the U.N., this might sound like a good idea. But our U.N. experience with Iraq, the Oil for Food scandal (that I reported many times in the past in this column), and countless other failings have shown that the U.N. can not be trusted with crafting U.S. foreign policy. Further, while the U.S. has made mistakes, we make decisions based on the best information around, rather than trying to win a popularity contest. Is Kerry trying to win the war on terror, or is he trying to be "liked?" As of this writing, nearly a million new jobs have been created since January 2004. With the economy improving, Kerry has had to reduce his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the recession. However, he does repeat the democratic drumbeat of "3 million jobs lost under Bush," deliberately ignoring the fact that those jobs would have been lost no matter who had been president at the time. His nebulous plan to improve the economy includes protectionist actions like manufacturing job credits for employers in order to keep jobs from going overseas. Alan Greenspan warned specifically against this in February, saying, "The protectionist cures being advanced to address these hardships will make matters worse rather than better," adding "protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs." Kerry's website says that he will soon be unveiling a plan to create 10 million jobs. No further details on this fantasy plan are available, and I don't expect much. The government isn't here to create jobs - that's what private companies are supposed to do in a capitalism like ours. Another plan Kerry has to improve the economy is to raise taxes. He has pulled back from his initial posture of rolling back all of Bush's tax cuts, but he would roll back tax cuts that primarily benefited "the wealthiest Americans." It's hard to tell exactly who he is talking about when you consider that by IRS standards, people making over $50,000 a year could be considered "wealthy." Also, given that economic booms have always followed large tax cuts (apparently also including Bush's tax cuts), it's hard to understand how increasing taxes would improve our economy. Lower taxes improve the economy, unless you happen to work for the government. And lets be clear - whether Kerry terms his tax changes as a rollback or a tax increase, it amounts to many people paying more than what they are paying now - so it's a tax increase. "Make no mistake, no one in this race will fight harder than I will to cover the uninsured and get to universal coverage. " Kerry adds, "Under my plan the government will pick up most of the tab for [the most] expensive cases - and the premiums for middle-class families will go down. " Universal health care is a non-starter. As bad as things are now, they are still better than if the government were responsible for doling out our healthcare. It's doubly concerning that Kerry would put those who are in the greatest need (the most expensive cases), at the will of the bureaucracy that is the U.S. government. Premiums may go down for the average middle class family, but taxes will undoubtedly increase to pay for this, and quality of care will drop to an all time low. The bottom line here is that America does not need an apologist, socialist leaning flip-flop artist to be elected president. Come this November, I say anyone but Kerry, but hopefully Bush. James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com Politics15470@blogcritics.org Fri, 7 May 2004 13:08:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/21/141008.php James GoldenOne lady shows a bit of tit and the whole country shifts direction. Since the infamous "nipplegate," our entire lifestyles have changed. Four letter words used to be bad; now five letter words are bad too! Cackles have been raised to an all time high. Howard Stern is slowly losing market share. The word for a female dog has been stricken from popular use; even Snoop Dogg doesn't say it anymore for fear of being ostracized. Yet you can still get your daily dose of blood and gore on prime time TV. What's going on?I thought that the goal here was to progress. Wasn't the plan to get to a point where even so-called bad words could be used to express unique thought? George Carlin already made fun of American culture for the seven bad words (in the 70's no less); do we really need to hear that spiel again?Who are we protecting from these so-called bad words and images? The children already know the bad words - they even know how to censor themselves around adults. And the children eventually get their hands on risque materials. Remember when you were a kid and found that copy of Playboy/National Geographic/Cosmo/Sweet Valley High/Hustler and discovered a whole new dimension to your life? Working with your hands, otherwise known as puberty! I thought that was a good part of growing up. Is puberty now relegated to those 18 and over? Or are they fighting to change the age to 21?All the parents reading this are now rolling their eyes, with the common response that I am only saying this because I am childless. "When you have a child," they retort, "you will be just as concerned about your kids - or at least you should be." Yes, yes, why not through in the extra little guilt that if I don't conform, I will be a bad parent. But I disagree with this conventional wisdom. My dad taught me the proper use of curse words (including when not to use them) at the tender age of 7. If you were to check my permanent record, you'd see that I was never in trouble for using bad words against a teacher or schoolmate. I found my first Hustler before I was ten (thank you superintendent of my apartment complex growing up), and it didn't turn me into a raving sexual freak.Kids are not a separate species, they are younger versions of us, and they are alot more intelligent than we give them credit for. Children are hungry for knowledge, including the knowledge of things that we might consider off color. The point behind childhood isn't to maintain chastity, it's to grow, so that when children reach the age of 18, they are able to cope with the world, and not be shocked into a stupor by a pair of breasts or their first experience with the "F" word.It's time for the adults of this nation to grow. Let's recognize that words are simply a mechanism for conveying ideas and intentions, words themselves can't ever be bad. Let's get over our childish shame, let's put away our fear of the naked human figure. Maybe if the children today are taught that the human body is beautiful (it is after all), and not something to be ashamed of, they can break free of the sexual dysfunction that has plagued our society. Who knows, maybe in 20 years, someone will flash a breast, and it won't even be a big deal. Now that's progress. Politics14959@blogcritics.org Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:10:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/07/143546.php James GoldenAs evidenced by my history of writings, while I agree with the Bush administration on many things, there are plenty of ideals that I do not share. A woman's right to abortion is one of those areas. Don't get me wrong, abortion is murder, and it isn't an exercise without sin. An abortion means an end to a life that almost certainly would have been lived otherwise. The point that politicians and "right to life'ers" just don't get, if abortion is made illegal, women of all ages will start dying in alleyways at the hands of unlicensed practitioners and butchers. The only time in our future when abortion should become illegal is when contraception (including the morning after pill) is 100% effective - abortion should only be discarded when it is truly no longer needed.It's not that I don't value the life of a fetus, I just happen to value the life of the mother a little bit more. And there really is nothing wrong with this. I have a mother and a lady friend and I know and value the women in my life more than I value their ability to serve as vessels for our children, just like I consider the men I know as more than just producers of sperm.Recently, scientists acknowledged that late term fetuses do feel pain during an abortion. Anyone with a brain would have known this already, given that a fetus is in fact a small human. After all, humans feel pain, don't they? Other than playing with the emotions of those on the fence of this issue, this information really has no bearing on whether abortion should continue to be legal. Isn't the concern that we are taking away a life and not the splash of pain that life may endure in its final seconds?On the other hand, in the case of Melissa Rowland, a lady who was charged with murder because she refused to get a caesarian section and the baby later died, the ACLU, NOW and other pro-choice groups have led the defense claiming that this is yet another attack on a woman's right to choose. But in reality, this woman had been found to be doing cocaine in the final days of her pregnancy, which is why doctors ordered the c-section in the first place. Her other child from the same pregnancy survived, and was found to have both cocaine and alcohol in it's blood. Clearly, a mother who abuses her body while pregnant should be guilty of a crime. The danger, as always lies in precedence and this ruling's application on future cases. Another similar development is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill currently in the works that gives the fetus rights in a violent attack on a mother. Given victims like Laci Peterson, this bill would seem to make a lot of sense, unless this sets a precedent where a doctor could be held accountable for simply performing an abortion.The zealousness of religious right to life activists has forced the hand of pro-lifers to defending scum like Melissa Rowland and Scott Peterson. Abortion, as repugnant of an act as it is, is a necessity if we are interested in saving the lives of our mothers, sisters and daughters. Pregnancy in this modern age means a complete change of direction for a woman's life. As a result, the woman is the only person able to make the decision of whether or not to have a baby. It might be a better use of our nation's energy, if we stopped arguing about what right's a woman should and should not have over her body, and instead focused on how to better raise the approximately 75 million children who have already been born, in an age where poor schooling, violence and drugs are easily found.James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com Culture14504@blogcritics.org Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:35:46 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/06/110606.php James GoldenI grew up learning about religious wars in history. The horrors of the crusades, the holocaust, all seemed too far in the past to touch my life. Thank god my generation seemed to be so much more focused on the important things in life, like happiness and family, or even money. But George Santayana had it all wrong, simply learning history won't necessarily protect you from repeating it, and here we are, in the midst of one of the biggest religious wars in the history of man.The similarities between the world's attitude regarding the atrocities of Hitler and those of Hussein are remarkable. The backlash the government faced during that time from some of the citizenry of the U.S. as well as public opinion abroad so closely matches our world in 2004 that it's almost scary. The 9/11 commission, the Pearl Harbor panel, the accusations that were floated that Roosevelt didn't do enough to stop Pearl Harbor from happening (there were warning signs of an impending attack from Japan). High ranking government officials like Joeseph Kennedy felt that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII in the first place. Others, citing the atrocities of the holocaust, argued that we didn't do enough to stop the Nazi's from their crusade of violence. And didn't we tacitly support Hitler during his early days? Now we want to go to war to take him out? How dare we change our minds like that? Does any of this sound familiar?As a nation, as a people, we haven't grown. Our political system is mired in partisan debates that boil down to who may gain a majority advantage come the next election. Rather than focus entirely on what's right, we respond with emotion and fear, finger pointing and unaccountability. We are faced with a greater threat than we've faced in half a century. Our entire system of freedoms is under review. Yet we pay more attention to a whistleblower's book than we do to the problem itself.Taking bi-partisan politics and emotional hatred for the Bush administration out of the picture, the majority of Americans agree that Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power a long time ago. The majority agrees that we need to win the war against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The majority feels that the best way to fight terrorism is through the establishment of real democracy in the Middle East. The differences between our highly split electorate boil down to whether we've conformed to international policy when waging war, or whether we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every single reason to go to war has been vindicated.The steps that the Bush administration has taken in the Middle East have certainly inflamed matters. Now that the Iraqi's have a voice, some of them are using it (and not exactly in the way we'd like). Although we entered Afghanistan in an effort to expel the Taliban and not rebuild the nation, we are now being blamed for the anarchy that reigns there (although it's important to note that the anarchy that was there before the U.S. invasion was not our fault, and the international community seemed to have no problems with it then). Our involvement in WWII was the right thing to do, not just for our country, but also for the world. But it wasn't easy - our coalition suffered hardships and many lives were lost. However, as time passed, it became clear just how important our actions were. Right now, we are suffering hardships, lives are being lost in Iraq, and global threat levels are being raised by al Qaeda and friends. Still, the right thing to for us to do is to remove despot regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, to root out al Qaeda, to establish and support democratic nations in the Middle East, and to inspire change in the leadership of the oppressed. If having a U.S. soldier on every block of every rogue nation helps protect us from even one terrorist attack, it's worth it. One thing is for sure, if we don't take a strong position against these elements, even more Americans will die in the name of Jihad.James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com Politics14460@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:06:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/31/223857.php James GoldenThe media has made much of Condoleezza Rice's refusal to appear under oath, in public, in front of the 9/11 Commission. Compared to Richard Clarke's apparently altruistic eagerness to discuss anything regarding the Bush administration's handling of the War on Terror, Rice has been portrayed as secretive and apprehensive. The headlines cast her as someone who fiercely disagrees with the charges made, but cannot back up her story under oath. Executive privilege has existed since the beginnings of American government, George Washington apparently invoked it himself. While executive privilege is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, separation of powers regarding the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, give presidential administrations certain rights against releasing information to the other branches of government. Presidents have argued that privilege is necessary for national security, and for being able to perform day to day functions without every comment possibly being "on the record." Privilege is generally only waived in criminal cases. 9/11 Chairman Thomas Kean said, "We recognize there are arguments having to do with separation of powers, we think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden." While the events of September 11th, 2001 were a horrific tragedy, given what we already know, there really doesn't seem to be much of a reason why administration officials like Rice should testify, publicly, under oath, or otherwise. It's clear that before 9/11, no pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan would have gained much support in America, let alone the U.N. None of Richard Clarke's reccommendations dealt with the possibility of an attack on our shores. The Clinton and Bush administrations considered terrorism important, but not necessarily urgent. (It's also interesting to note that the U.S. never got a chance to respond to the U.S.S. Cole bombing, and yet we were still attacked on 9/11.) Even the pious Richard Clarke was more concerned about Cyberterrorism prior to 9/11. He now claims he had no choice but to focus on cyber security, but his comments prior to 9/11 prove otherwise. The truth is, no one saw 9/11 coming. People have imagined the possibility of jets being flown into buildings before 9/11, but no one ever thought it would actually happen, and not on the scale that it did. We fooled ourselves into thinking that it could never happen to us, that no terrorist would bring bloodshed to our shores. While the ideology behind the 9/11 Commission is admirable, lessons are not being learned. Rather than try to figure out how to better fight the war on terrorism, the commission is mired in scandals involving who does and does not participate. The Bush administration has agreed to let Rice testify in public, and under oath, with the condition that executive privilege still exist. Regardless, the President and his administration have every right to fight for the protection of executive privilege. James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com Politics14278@blogcritics.org Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:38:57 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/201732.php James GoldenIt seems like every year, our nation's 20/20 hindsight gets better and better. I'd put our vision looking back at 20/10 even. If only the future were more clear. Some are making the charge that they did see the future and the rest of us just didn't happen to be listening. Richard Clarke is the latest to make such allegations.Like Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke has come out saying that the Bush administration was pre-occupied with the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq just days into the presidency. Clarke charges that not enough was done to prevent 9/11, and that despite warnings that he made, no action was taken: "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe, we'll never know."It would actually be a much more accurate assessment to say that terrorism had been ignored by our government for years, possibly decades, but I'm not counting. Clarke goes on to say that, "I think they had an idée fixe, a plan from Day One that they wanted to do something about Iraq." Yes, why not show the regime in Iraq that starting with this presidency, Saddam is ok with us?The fact is, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, not Iraq, 40 days after September 11th, 2001. It wasn't until a year and a half after Afghanistan that our military forces invaded Iraq. Before September 11th, there had simply been no attempt to raise Iraq as an issue by the Bush administration. On March 4th 2001, Vice President Cheney told CNN that Iraq did not represent a serious threat at the time. Later that month, the Chicago Tribune reported that Bush would scale back enforcement of the no-fly zones in Iraq.Richard Clarke, who served as "terrorism czar" under the Clinton administration, and who was passed over as Homeland Security Director in favor of Tom Ridge following 9/11, did air his concerns about al Qaeda in early 2001. According to the Bush administration, many of his ideas were implemented. However, none of his concerns related to an al Qaeda attack on American soil, and none of his suggestions would have helped prevent 9/11. Condoleeza Rice characterized Clarke's discussion of al Qaeda as pedantic; "I wasn't born yesterday when Clarke briefed me. This wasn't an issue of who knew about al Qaeda, but what we were going to do about al Qaeda." Richard Clarke did meet with the president a week before the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Clarke's main focus for that cabinet meeting was "cyber terrorism."To anyone with a recollection of events before 9/11, it's obvious that at that time, our government was not pursuing an agenda to remove Hussein from power. Even Paul O'Neill backtracked from initial reports, admitting that President Bush was simply continuing work that had been started by administrations past, both Democratic and Republican. Given Saddam Hussein's brutal past, chemical warfare on his own people, secretly developing weapons of mass destruction (at least, according to everyone including the U.N. before 2003), taking constant potshots at coalition pilots in the No-Fly zone, support of terrorists, and at one time conspiring to kill an American president, it's not surprising that removal of his regime would merit greater attention following 9/11 - regardless of his direct involvement in it. And by all accounts (bi-partisan ones at least), America is safer as a result of his removal. James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com Politics14014@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:17:32 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/200732.php James GoldenI am sick of the way that so-called "honest" news sources continue to cloud popular opinion with misinformation. How hard is it to accurately and fairly report news? Dishonest, inaccurate news has always bothered me, but last week's news coverage was so far off the mark, so incredibly inaccurate, that I was compelled to write about it. Making my usual trawl of news stories, I came across the following tidbit from the front page of CNN. The article was titled, "Polish leader: WMD never existed" but I could not find a direct quote within the article making any such claim. In fact, the Polish leader in question seemed quite satisfied with his participation in Iraq. I mentioned this to a friend of mine who directed me to the Polish Embassy's website. Right there on the front page, it said: "Statement of the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of PolandDue to misinterpretations pertaining to the President’s remarks given during his meeting with the press on March 18, 2004, the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland has been authorized to issue the following:1. The essence of the President’s message in his remarks to the press on March 18, 2004 has been a restated presentation of reasons and purposes of Polish involvement in the process of stabilization and democratization of Iraq. "Iraq today, without Saddam Hussein is truly a better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein" the President said. He also warned of political decisions, which would lead to destabilization of the situation in Iraq. Poland will not withdraw from Iraq until the mission of stabilization is successfully accomplished and counts on effective cooperation with the United States, Great Britain, Spain and other NATO and UN member states. 2. The President of the Republic of Poland reminded that Saddam Hussein misled the world in believing that he had had the weapons of mass destruction and might use them. This was the essential reason to take up the mission in Iraq within a common strategy of a multinational coalition in the war on terrorism.3. The President of the Republic of Poland stated that a decisive factor in fighting terrorism is to maintain unity and solidarity by democratic states. Demonstration of weakness in the face of terrorist attacks aims at the foundations of democracy and security of all nations and world peace." These direct statements from the Polish embassy are a FAR cry from CNN's claim that WMDs never existed, or Japan Today's claim that Poland was considering early withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Despite the Poland Embassy's efforts, all weekend I was pelted by claims from a variety of news outlets that Poland was thinking of withdrawing troops. Maybe I am missing the point. Maybe the complexities of international diplomacy are lost on me. Maybe the Polish leader's non-remarks were really a remark unto themselves and these statements on their website is a quick recant (and acknowledgement) of the non-comments. Maybe the press is doing me a favor by interpreting these goings on into simple phrases like "WMDs never existed" and "polish troop withdrawal." But I doubt it.The media has allowed, without appropriate challenge, the claim that President Bush distorted intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. This claim was properly addressed by Tim Russert on this Sunday's Meet the Press when he asked Senator Ted Kennedy (one of John Kerry's biggest supporters), "So the president and the Congress was acting on the same information, and now you're saying the president lied when, in fact, your colleague, Senator Kerry, voted for war, voted for the authorization and said on the floor of the Senate, "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction." To which Kennedy responded, "The fact is this administration distorted and misrepresented--weapons of mass destruction, Tim--does Syria have weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Does Iran have it? Yes. Did Libya have it? Yes. Does Egypt have it? Yes. Does North Korea have it, this nuclear weapons--yes. So we understand that they had some program. They misrepresent the immediacy. They made the point--when they talk about mushroom cloud, they talk about grave, they talk about the immediate threat, they were talking about an immediate threat." I'm not really sure what Kennedy was talking about, but thank you Mr. Russert.CNN has pretty much stopped using the word terrorist in it's articles, opting instead for "militant" and only occasionally using the 'T' word if they are quoting someone who happens to use it. AP has followed suit. The New York Times has long been accused of copping a liberal, almost communist bias in their reporting. Freedom of the press is one of the fundamental principles of American society, but the purpose of a free press is to help get the truth out, not enable publishing company’s to promote their own agendas or sway Americans with misinformation. James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com Politics14013@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:07:32 EST