Archive for Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Democrats amass largest war chests
Sebelius, Morrison lead fields on campaign donations
July 25, 2006
Advertisement
Kansas is a Republican state by voter registration.
But two Democrats are leading the way in raising campaign funds, according to finance reports filed Monday.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has banked nearly $2.1 million as she awaits the winner of the Aug. 1 Republican Party primary.
The three leading Republican hopefuls in a field of seven have spent a combined total of approximately $600,000 this year.
And in the attorney general's race, newly converted Democrat Paul Morrison has $764,839 on hand for his November general election matchup against Republican incumbent Phill Kline, who had $418,492.
"Sebelius has successfully split the Republican Party in Kansas," said Bob Beatty, political science professor at Washburn University.
"The divide between the moderates and conservatives has just become stark with the phenomenon of Kathleen Sebelius," he said.
Republican hopefuls
In the GOP gubernatorial primary, state Sen. Jim Barnett of Emporia has the most cash on hand for the final days of the race - $194,213, according to the reports, which cover 2006 through last Thursday.
Former House speaker Robin Jennison had $56,736, and author and consultant Ken Canfield of Overland Park had $6,536 heading into the primary campaign's final days.
Rounding out the race, attorney Tim Pickell of Prairie Village had $5,026 left for the campaign, and former legislator Rex Crowell of Longton, $829. Attorney Dennis Hawver of Ozawkie and retiree Richard Rodewald of Eudora reported they would each spend under $500 for the entire campaign.
Election 2006 - Kansas races
More on the 2006 Elections in Kansas
- Video
- 6News video: Low turnout may result in new primary election date (08-30-06)
- 6News video: Candidate speaks at university forum (08-30-06)
- 6News video: Evolution supporters will hold board majority (08-02-06)
- 6News video: Snag-free night for primaries (08-02-06)
- 6News video: County puts new voting machines to test (08-01-06)
- 6News video: Praeger holds up over opponent (08-01-06)
- Stories
- Low turnout prompts call for new primary date (08-31-06)
- Publisher blasts candidate for illegally stuffing newspapers (08-04-06)
- Election hailed as pro-evolution (08-03-06)
- New voting machines perform well on first test (08-03-06)
- Barnett wins GOP bid to take on Sebelius (08-02-06)
- Voter turnout among lowest in memory (08-02-06)
- Eudora takes plunge on pool (08-02-06)
- Praeger prevails in 'negative' contest (08-02-06)
- Primary election results
- See how the voting went in select races
- Campaign finance reports
- Statewide office
- Board of Education
- Election 2006 - Kansas races
Barnett, a physician, had spent the most so far in the Republican race this year, nearly $300,000. His war chest included $110,000 of his own money.
"I think we have enough money to get our message out in the final week," said Rodger Woods, a spokesman for Barnett.
The winner of the GOP primary will face Sebelius, who started the year with $1.75 million in campaign funds, raised an additional $1 million and then spent approximately $600,000.
"I appreciate the confidence, prayers and financial support of the people of Kansas. I pledge to continue my commitment to accountability and progress we've achieved together," Sebelius said.
Kline vs. Morrison
While the attorney general's race featured no contested primaries, Morrison and Kline have been gearing up for a fierce general election showdown Nov. 7.
Morrison, the Johnson County district attorney, touted his campaign finance edge.
"People all across the state are joining our campaign because they share my view that, by electing a new attorney general with the right priorities, we can do more to keep our families safe," he said.
Kline's campaign was undaunted.
Sherriene Jones, a spokesman for Kline, said he will run on his record of successfully defending the state's death penalty before the U.S. Supreme Court and fighting for tougher laws against sexual predators.
Down-ballot races
Further down the ballot, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger of Lawrence reported spending $279,905 this year. She faces state Rep. Eric Carter of Overland Park in the Republican Party primary.
Carter reported spending $78,901, but he has a sizable sum left for the end of the campaign - $92,312 to Praeger's $8,677. Praeger has had television ads up the past several weeks in the race, and has the backing of former U.S. Sens. Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum Baker.
Another Republican incumbent, Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, faces a challenge within his own party. State Sen. Kay O'Connor has $4,466 on hand to spend, while Thornburgh reported having $46,835.
More like this
- August ballot lineups are decided June 13, 2006
- Attorney general race heats up from the start 29 comments / August 21, 2006
- Kansas GOP sees moderate candidate departures 2 comments / October 20, 2006
- GOP split in Kansas may hint at U.S. trend 377 comments / June 14, 2006
- Statewide primaries put GOP split in focus November 24, 2001
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Leaders offer tips for chancellor’s successful tenure November 21, 2009 · 1 comment
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 116 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 157 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 57 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 47 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 109 comments
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009 · 37 comments
- Not-so-gentle reign November 19, 2009 · 133 comments
- Fatal mindset November 20, 2009 · 48 comments
- On the street: Will you miss ‘The Oprah Winfrey’ show? November 21, 2009 · 2 comments
- Phillips County businesses create own hamburger October 2, 2003
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
- CLARENCE E. RINKE OBITUARY October 19, 1999
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009
- Farmers' Turnpike reopens after four months of construction November 20, 2009
- KU student pushes button that demolishes a portion of the Kansas Turnpike bridge November 19, 2009
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- Sexual healing: Dennis Dailey coaches couples with tough love at his intimacy workshop November 20, 2009
- Salvation Army has high hopes for Red Kettle campaign, despite slow start November 20, 2009
25 July 2006
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erichaar (Anonymous) says…
Morrison finally came out of the political closet admitting he was only masquerading as a Republican because, at the time, it was the most politically expedient and financially profitable thing to do.
Now the bone looks jucier on the other side, so he's hightailing it to what he sees as the next best thing.
25 July 2006
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
And of course, erichaar, if the tables were turned and Morrison was a “former Democrat” and/or “newly-converted Republican”… you'd say zilch about his “political expediency,” his “masquerading” etc. Rather, you'd be praising God on high that Morrison had finally seen the light or some such nonsense.
Hypocrites like you are so easy to spot! :p
And as for Democrats and all the money they've been raising: Ross Perot!
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
25 July 2006
at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
badger (Anonymous) says…
I can't help it.
I see headlines about Democrats' 'large war chests' and wonder if that means they've locked in the stripper vote.
I'm a bad, bad badger.
25 July 2006
at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger of Lawrence reported spending $279,905 this year…Carter reported spending $78,901, but he has a sizable sum left for the end of the campaign - $92,312 to Praeger's $8,677.”
So, is Carter planning to spend all $92k in the one week remaining? Seems more likely that Carter has far bigger political ambitions than Insurance Commissioner, and since the politicians have written the law so that candidates can keep funds for future races, it may be that Carter will hold onto the cash and dream of the future.
Ironically, despite his expertise on insurance (from the insurance companies' point-of-view) Carter would be a far more formidable candidate for other offices, such as U.S. Representative or Governor, where his libertarian / conservative agenda would find more fertile ground. (Heck, Carter would probably have run for AG except Kline already has 'dibs' on that spot. Goodness knows that Carter is as much if not more qualified than Kline.)
25 July 2006
at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…
Come on, Agnostick, you're putting words in erichaar's mouth and you know it. You can't accuse him of hypocrisy for something you're hypothesizing he might say under different circumstances. Or, rather, you can but it doesn't make him a hypocrite cause he ain't done it!
25 July 2006
at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Jamesaust: Many lawyers who bother to keep their law licenses current already have a leg up on Kline, in my book.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
25 July 2006
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
meggers (Anonymous) says…
“Come on, Agnostick, you're putting words in erichaar's mouth and you know it.”
Wilbur_Nether,
If you want to look at things that way, go back and look at what erichaar initially wrote. It seems to me that it is he who is putting words into Paul Morrison's mouth. Unless, of course, he can can come up with a quote from Morrison to back up his allegations.
25 July 2006
at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
And as meggers points out, the Republican hypocrisy rolls on…
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
25 July 2006
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
Republican hypocrisy differs from Democrat hypocrisy exactly how?
The Democrats, who howl that the Republicans are captives of “Special Interest Fat Cats,” receive over 80% of the donations from 8 of the top 10 political donors (over 90% from 6 of those). Furthermore, they receive 49% from the 9th, and 36% from the 10th.
In addition, they receive 84%, 91%, 91% of the donations from 3 of the top 5 individual donors.
There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, Agnostick, but I guess you don't care about it if it belongs to Democrats.
25 July 2006
at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Whoa dude…you must be new around here. Can you cite all those numbers you just threw around?
25 July 2006
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
Go to opensecrets.com and you can find them for yourself.
25 July 2006
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Solomon, are you shilling for that collection of banner ads and online advertising? How many ads does one have to wallow through to get that whatever information you purport to have?
I'd recommend to everyone else that you *NOT* visit the opensecrets web site… but if you do, be careful: Every click is a few pennies in some banner ad's pocket. :(
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
25 July 2006
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dani (Anonymous) says…
Arminius wrote “I'm just amazed at how easily you Dems accepted Moore. Out of all the Democrats in Kansas, no one else was qualified for the position of AG?”
I'll assume you meant Morrison, and yeah, there are a lot of great Democrat lawyers in Kansas, just none with the bitch-slapping-Phill-Kline potential of Paul Morrison.
25 July 2006
at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
The hypocrisy lies not in the funding so much as the contentious regard the Republicans have for the people footing the bill. Sure, both sides receive special interest funding, and both sides commit atrocities of that are both war and economic in scope, but both sides do not also attempt a point-blank robbery of the citizens. One side does, in fact, advocate some change that has anti-establishment leanings — universal health care, human rights, worker rights, and environmental responsibility. One side does believe in privacy and freedom. That side is not the current Republican party.
25 July 2006
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
One side does in fact advocate wholesale re-distribution of wealth from those that have earned it to those that have not. That same side, when it has been in power, implemented programs which proved to be hugely wasteful and inefficient, and encouraged people to not be responsible for themselves. That side is the Democrats.
What so-called “human rights” do the Democrats advocate that are not current human rights? The same question for “workers rights?”
Every human has God-given rights, and every American citizen has rights that are protected by the constitution. Every worker has the right to contract his labor for a wage. He equally has the right to not do that in a situation he finds disadvantageous to himself.
25 July 2006
at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
interrobang (John Ralston) says…
**What so-called “human rights” do the Democrats advocate that are not current human rights? The same question for “workers rights?”**
How about “all men are created equal”? Every time this comes up, the Republicans pull out the “special rights” canard—and they do it specifically to distract people from your first assertion: they are, in fact, the side that's in the business of taking money from people who don't have it and giving it right to those who already do—the giant corporations who are their real constituents.
25 July 2006
at 1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fletch (Anonymous) says…
Ahhh, poor GOP. I guess it's a pain to have to spend the little money you have fighting a primary because nobody in your party can get along, only to have the big bad Dems stomp you in November because we've found party cohesion and smart funraising tactics. At the very least, you now know how we've felt for all those years the KS GOP was steamrolling up.
I guess the Blue Tide is rising.
25 July 2006
at 1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Arminius-
“He did cite all those numbers. Why cite them again?”
Uhhhh….he hadn't cited them until after I asked him. Where in this post, to which I replied, does he cite anything?
––––––
“Republican hypocrisy differs from Democrat hypocrisy exactly how?
The Democrats, who howl that the Republicans are captives of “Special Interest Fat Cats,” receive over 80% of the donations from 8 of the top 10 political donors (over 90% from 6 of those). Furthermore, they receive 49% from the 9th, and 36% from the 10th.
In addition, they receive 84%, 91%, 91% of the donations from 3 of the top 5 individual donors.
There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, Agnostick, but I guess you don't care about it if it belongs to Democrats.”
––––––-
I don't see anything cited there. Again, Arminius proves that just because he says it, don't make it true.
25 July 2006
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nugget (Anonymous) says…
“Sebelius has successfully split the Republican Party in Kansas,” said Bob Beatty, political science professor at Washburn University.
This just in: National Enquirer Magazine announces the hiring of Bob Beatty as headline writer. The Enquirer editor was quoted as saying, “you should read the stuff this guy makes up!”
25 July 2006
at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
Nice mythology. Gee, I wish I could believe too. I don't dispute that both sides serve their own self-interests, often at our expense. But to say that government programs are wasteful is to only read half of the story. This perception is a myth specifically created to ease the transition to private ownership. The myth is simple: government is wasteful and abuses your trust; private ownership is more efficient and can be held accountable. It makes sense to spread this bit of propaganda because there is a ton of money to be made by the privatization of various services. Republicans are more in favor of this than Democrats are.
Why is it a myth? The private sector engages in vast strategies to dump waste onto the tax-payer. It's called externalization. Since they're not elected and not Federally funded, the people don't have any control over what they do. They commit human rights violations, environmental degradation, cost-benefit analyses that puts profits ahead of human life, and encourage the army to fight wars for them. The list goes on and on, is well-documented, and hidden from the public's eye. The ultimate bill is paid by us. I guess you could call that hugely wasteful and inefficient if you side with the tax-payer, who foots the bill. I certainly do.
These human rights I speak of. One of the main human rights issues these days is gay rights. These have been trampled upon by right-wingers for a long time now, and god seems to disapprove of their fair treatment as well. Are they not people? Do they not deserve fair treatment? How about the right of a worker to keep his job? How about anti-trust laws? How about privacy? How about citizenship? These tenets are being abused in fantastic numbers by the Republicans in power, and can only be upheld and enforced insofar as the administration is willing to take them seriously. The prevailing paradigm suggests that they are not.
25 July 2006
at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
badger (Anonymous) says…
Now that's just semantic pointlessness.
Seriously, Arminius, I thought even you had *some* vague standards for usefulness of posting at some point.
If you really didn't understand, perhaps it would help you to know that 'cite' is commonly used academic shorthand because most of the English-speaking world knows that what you cite are sources.
25 July 2006
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Arminius-
Wow. That might go on my list as the most pathetic reaching I've seen from you.
25 July 2006
at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
Quote: “I'd recommend to everyone else that you *NOT* visit the opensecrets web site… but if you do, be careful: Every click is a few pennies in some banner ad's pocket. :(“
Agnostick, I can just see you trembling in fear that someone, somewhere, is making a profit on their ingenuity, investment, and effort.
Profits!! Horrors!!!!
25 July 2006
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
To be fair, a better reference would be the FEC website, which also lists all of the political numbers. Either way…
Arminius-
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
You only succeeded in making yourself look stupid. Everyone who reads this knows that I was asking for a reference to the numbers. Again, I know you think you are some kind of authority, but just because you sez it, doesn't make you one.
25 July 2006
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
I would think that one would not achieve the position of professor of political science without having proven an adeptness at political science. I agree with prof. Beatty that the GOP in Kansas has had (or is having) a schism. The term “RINO” comes to mind.
I for one am enthusiastic that the moderate (sane, for the most part) republicans are showing the stones to split from their extremist hard right brethren.
25 July 2006
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Democrats need war chests like the ones mentioned in the article as they have to buy elections; witness Old Man Kennedy buying the Presidency for John in 1960.
Thanks.
Marion.
25 July 2006
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Read the 2nd definition of cite, ass.
Who is the authority?
I'm done with you and your meaningless drivel.
25 July 2006
at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
drewdun (Anonymous) says…
Solomon said:
“One side does in fact advocate wholesale re-distribution of wealth from those that have earned it to those that have not. That same side, when it has been in power, implemented programs which proved to be hugely wasteful and inefficient, and encouraged people to not be responsible for themselves”
Actually, it was the redistribution of wealth by the New Deal Democrats that saved the nation from fascism or communism. They had to do this because the reckless greed engendered by the laissez-faire Republicans (I guess history repeats itself) who ruled before them led to an economic cataclysm - perhaps you have heard of the Great Depression. And in reality, the programs instituted by the New Deal Democrats were designed to benefit businesses, so they could re-establish themeselves, grow, and hire more people. For more in-depth reading on the subject, I suggest “The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, Vol. 2” by Alfred Kelly.
Also, perhaps you have never heard of this:
“In the nineteen-sixties, many economists believed that economic growth and government intervention would eliminate poverty. Between 1964 and 1973, as Johnson's Great Society programs went into effect, the poverty rate fell from nineteen per cent of the population to 11.1 per cent. But, while the nation's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has virtually tripled since 1973, the poverty rate has hardly budged. In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, it stood at 12.7 per cent”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content…
But I guess making up your own reality is part and parcel of being a right-winger, so you can't really be blamed.
25 July 2006
at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Sorry cowboy.
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof
He did qoute something, but “example, authority, or proof” are absent. I don't think that your childish attempts to atagonize brought anything to the forum today. I stand by my “clumsy” sentence, but it was not “imprecise.”
I'm disappointed in myself for even engaging you off topic, and I will do my best to not do it again. You really amaze me in your attempts to pull the most random BS out of the sky and try to turn it against posters with whom you disagree.
I'm not surprised that you consitently stray from the topic or make ad hominem statements…when you stay on topic, you usually get your ass handed to you…
25 July 2006
at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
The U.S., specifically the CIA, and Pakistan trained bin Laden and other “al Qaeda” to fight during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. It's common knowledge.
25 July 2006
at 8:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
interrobang (John Ralston) says…
“U.S. Did Not Create Bin Laden, U.S. Says”
25 July 2006
at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
That document presents about three or four conflicting explanations, admits that the area is gray at best, and is sponsored by a group that has quite a bit of interest in disassociating the two, but let's look at a section from paragraph two:
“The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan.”
The link between the CIA/ISI and al Qaeda is well established. It is known that OBL's group was supplied with US arms, fought along side the Afghan mujÄhidÄ»n fighters, was supported by American dollars, and trained by American-back factions. We know this from sources as diverse as the BBC, Juan Cole, the Guardian, Al Jezeera, the Federation of American Scientists, PBS, the SAAG, and the State Department.
Interesting side note: the CIA through the ISI also encouraged heroin production and smuggling into Afghanistan in order to make the Soviet troops into addicts.
25 July 2006
at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bthom37 (Anonymous) says…
“
Democrats need war chests like the ones mentioned in the article as they have to buy elections; witness Old Man Kennedy buying the Presidency for John in 1960.
Thanks.
Marion.”
Really? I invite you to reflect upon the 2004 election.
Bush: 367mil
Kerry: 301mil
Who buys elections?
since we're all so cite-y today: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure…
26 July 2006
at 12:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
The ISI was funded by the CIA, had CIA members working directly with it, trained, coordinated by the CIA, and took their orders (at least partly) from the CIA. They, in turn, directed, funded, and trained all of the seven principal rebel organizations. You can find documentation anywhere from PBS to CNN to the Wallstreet Journal.
Here are two relevant quotes from the Wikipedia articles on the ISI and the Afghan war, respectively:
“A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers”
“Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and Special Service Group were actively involved in the conflict, and in cooperation with the CIA and the United States Army Special Forces supported the armed struggle against the Soviets.”
We know that the rebels used American-made FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and we know that the US sought to buy these and other weapons back from the rebels after the war. We also know that covert action by the US started well before the actual war began.
We don't have photos of OBL with the Carter or Reagan, but the link is pretty clear. CIA to ISI to OBL.
Now. You claim that the link between the two has been “proven false”. Please provide credible sources outside of the government as evidence.
26 July 2006
at 1:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
Actually, your original source proves my point quite nicely. It begins with a thesis: the CIA never provided support directly to the Afghan Arabs — it provided it though the ISI — then embarks on a set of misguided paragraphs citing numerous questionable sources (including Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri) that conviently leave out the ISI connection. The propogand machine at its finest.
The best part is this section at the end:
From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:
“For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI.” (The Bear Trap, p. 81).
The very separate sources that your argument hinges on are nothing more than a front for a U.S.-Saudi arrangement.
26 July 2006
at 1:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…
I apologize for the misspellings in the previous post. The first paragraph should read:
… that conveniently leave out the ISI connection. The propaganda machine at its finest.
26 July 2006
at 1:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
badger (Anonymous) says…
Arminius said:
“staff04:
This is a case in which it would be much better for you to admit that you simply wrote a clumsy and imprecise sentence.”
I reply, “This is a case in which it would be much better for you to admit that you can make no reasonable direct response to the position of your opponent, and so rather than withdraw gracefully, you confine yourself to grasping at semantic linguistic straws to promote the illusion that you're still somehow engaged in what substance remains to this discussion.”
I post lots of useful things. Usually, they're naughty knock-knock jokes and puns, but I think I once put up some very saucy limericks. So nerts to you.