Tell Us What You Really ... er, 'Think'

Monday, September 12. 2005

Tell Us What You Really ... er, 'Think'

Director of security policy studies at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs Gordon Adams, who was also senior White House budget official for national security in the Clinton Administration, has written this incredible screed filled with misrepresentations and hyperbole in the Baltimore Sun, which reads in part:

We have a president who is apparently ill-informed, lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed officials who give incompetence new meaning, who replace the positive role of government with expensive baloney.
...

It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly, troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and returned to their caves, clubs in hand.

It's good to know such level-headed thinking adorns the hallways of one the nation's universities (and formerly advised near the highest levels of government)....

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 17:39 | Comments (50) | Trackbacks (3)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Is adding the word "apparently" to the first sentence intended to mitigate the tone so as to allow the writer to claim membership in the "reality-based community"? And how do you ride someone out on a rail "gracefully"?

#1 Jamie (Homepage) on 2005-09-13 07:25 (Reply)

Indeed. Such insightful, carefully considered "thought" might explain in part the "seriousness" in which the Clinton Administration implemented the nation's national security needs.

#2 Tim on 2005-09-13 07:34 (Reply)

Ho hum,just another whining moonbat with a hate complex.

#3 starboardside on 2005-09-13 07:45 (Reply)

Amazing how those who regularly remind us how much smarter and more tolerant they are than the rest of us can so easily lapse into such narrowminded and judgmental stereotyping.

Oh, that's right -- the rules don't apply to them.

Idiot.

#4 Jay on 2005-09-13 07:46 (Reply)

Would this be the same Mr. Adams and Clinton Administration that did such a fine job of stopping Bin Laden during the planning phase of the 9/11 attacks?

#5 Steve on 2005-09-13 07:47 (Reply)

And I am paying a great deal of money to have my son "educated" at the Elliott School. "Ouch" indeed!

#6 California Yankee (Homepage) on 2005-09-13 07:58 (Reply)

"...clubs in hand."

Well, at least he supports the Second Amendment....

#7 PersonFromPorlock on 2005-09-13 08:01 (Reply)

Ah, acadamia, the unchlorinated swimming pool in which I continue to waste my time. I'd kiss you if you if you weren't swimming with disease.

#8 Matt on 2005-09-13 08:01 (Reply)

Perhaps he suffers from academentia, a syndrome indicated by increasing difficulty in recognizing reality, as a result of being so far removed from the need to produce anything of value...

#9 Bob Rahm on 2005-09-13 08:09 (Reply)

Funny, but this is exactly the way I feel about ideologues and secular fundamentalists on the Left who've spent the last half century conducting disastrous experiments in social engineering.

It's how I feel about the race hustlers and grievance nurturers who keep them company.

It's how I feel about educators who've turned our high schools and universities into re-education camps that would make Mao green with envy.

And it's how I feel about the naive incompetents who repeatedly risk the destruction of this country because they refuse to recognize that we have enemies.

It's gone on long enough -- they should pay a price for the way they've weakened our society and our nation.

Yep. Tarrred, feathered and driven out of town sounds about right.

So there.

What a moron.

#10 Cosmo on 2005-09-13 08:09 (Reply)

P.S. Adams uses media-manufactured memes (how's that for alliteration) as the basis for his indictment. As such, it's a mobius strip of self-reinforcing nonsense.

#11 Cosmo on 2005-09-13 08:28 (Reply)

wait...so how does attacking the messenger negate any of the things he said?

surely you can do better!

#12 vince on 2005-09-13 08:30 (Reply)

Good point Vince! I find nothing out of line with what he wrote regardless of its color. The first paragraph seems to be an adequete description. In the second he resorts to violence which proves he's not a sissy, so not a lot to hate here.

BT

#13 Bill Timmons on 2005-09-13 08:34 (Reply)

Very Well...

"We have a president who is apparently ill-informed,..."

of what?

"lackadaisical,..."

at what?

"and narrow-minded..."

which means he's sincerely religious and unafraid of declarative sentences.

"surrounded by oil baron cronies"

like who? Cheney aside, I mean.

And why can't this administration of Oil Privilege manage to get any actualy oil heading our direction?

"religious fundamentalist crazies"

I haven't noticed the re-adoption of the Massachusetts Bay laws, the Mann Act, or indeed any of the blue laws we are so repeatedley warned with. So far the Bush Star Chamber has managed to render illegal the process of slaughtering infants with their heads still in the womb. Such theocracy!

"and right-wing extremists and ideologues..."

Good morning, Pot! I'd like you to meet my friend Kettle. He has a message for you.

"He has appointed officials who give incompetence new meaning, who replace the positive role of government with expensive baloney."

Who are these incompetent officials, and what is the expensive baloney? Is it more expensive than the New Deal/Great Society legislation we're still paying for?

"It is time to hold them accountable"

boilerplate.

"this ugly, troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their strap-hangers"

Is it his contention that an average sample of Beltway insiders, rich lawyers, ideologues, etc. would include NO Democrats?

"should be tarred, feathered and ridden gracefully and mindfully out of Washington"

How does one tar, feather, and ride someone out of town *gracefully*? And what does "mindfully" mean? Mindful of what? Not letting them get away?

This statement is dreck. It is without content or argument. It is simply the existential cry of one who believes himself to be an elite yet, oddly, is not treated as such. It is the Revenge of the Nerds.

#13.1 Andrew (Homepage) on 2005-09-13 10:03 (Reply)

BDS, a textbook case.

#14 Tully on 2005-09-13 08:43 (Reply)

You are correct, but those types of people do not understand their own desperate need for their strait-jackets. Paranoia, you know?

#14.1 leaddog2 on 2005-09-13 08:50 (Reply)

"The first paragraph seems to be an adequete description."

This is, if you accept tired cliches and name-calling as "adequate." And people wonder why the opposition isn't given keys to the car or the liquor cabinet . . .

Sheesh.

#15 Cosmo on 2005-09-13 08:46 (Reply)

What a lying idiot (but then who else would work for the Clinton administration?).
One example: without "rich lawyers", the Democrats would be losing their main contributors. Also: great job with Bin Laden, jackass. I guess that was one "religious fundamentalist crazy" that he and his boss could tolerate.
No wonder these despicable bastards have been getting their tuchises kicked in every election for the past 10 years.

#16 TexasJew on 2005-09-13 08:59 (Reply)

who was also senior White House budget official for national security

I wonder if he feels guilty for failing the American public so horribly, helping make 911/OK City/93 WTC attacks possible. He sounds like he has a guilty conscience (if he has a conscience at all.) I would put him on the suicide watch list.

#17 Anon on 2005-09-13 09:14 (Reply)

I'm actually a student at the Elliott school, and I have to say that I am mostly suprised by such sentiment. I did have one adjunct history prof who was virulently anti-Bush, but by the same token I also had an econ prof was openly Republican. While most of the faculty no doubt leans left, I haven't been subject to such blatant partisan nonsense.

#18 Colin (Homepage) on 2005-09-13 09:28 (Reply)

"I'm actually a student at the Elliott school, and I have to say that I am mostly suprised by such sentiment. I did have one adjunct history prof who was virulently anti-Bush, but by the same token I also had an econ prof was openly Republican. While most of the faculty no doubt leans left, I haven't been subject to such blatant partisan nonsense."

I'm an Elliott school student as well, and I totally agree. My experience is that GW is generally fairly open ideologically - even the teachers I've had who I know to be lefties mostly keep it out of the classroom and/or welcome dissenting views. I actually had one teacher who made no secret of the fact that he couldn't stand Bush who came to know that I had voted for him - one time he actually apologized in advance to me before saying something critical. In any case, I've never felt uncomfortable as a Republican there. I would say to all of you who said you have children there, pretty much every major school in the country leans left but GW is not bad at all compared to some of the horror stories I've heard from other schools, so don't worry too much.

#18.1 GWstudent on 2005-09-13 18:42 (Reply)

What could he mean by "strap-hangers"? A strap hanger is a subway rider, at least here in NYC. Does he have something against people who ride the subway to work? Class snobbery exposed via Freudian slip? Perplexing.

Perhaps he means "hangers on". I'm guessing this column wasn't carefully edited: perhaps it was difficult (not to mention distasteful) to read with all the spittle marks on the page.

#19 seb on 2005-09-13 09:28 (Reply)

Guy makes perfect sense. Glad you published his comments on a conservative page. It's about time you guys woke up to the outrages of the Bush misadministration.

Judging from the comments though, sounds like some of the readers here are foaming at the mouth. Probably can't stand an opinion different from theirs-even if it's right. My advice to them would be to put their talk radio back on and listen to Savage or Limbaugh and leave reading--a diminished and dangerous skill--to those willing to think.

#20 toM on 2005-09-13 09:29 (Reply)

How can a single person be subject to cliche's about his character? Can you honestly deny one of them? Just because this dude doesn't do his own dirty work don't think he hasn't loved all the b.s. perpetrated for him, from McCain's black love child to the Swifties.

And if this isn't name calling:
"And people wonder why the opposition isn't given keys to the car or the liquor cabinet . . ."

It's what? Insulting implication? I put this in the Rove-o-meter and it gives you a 72 for duplicity and a 23 for spin, better luck next time.

Bill Timmons

#21 Bill Timmons on 2005-09-13 09:42 (Reply)

Unfortunately, name calling and invective is what passes for "reasoned debate" and "analysis" for far too many on the left these days.

Although there are a (VERY) few places to find actual reasoned debate and analysis from some on the left, those places are vastly outnumbered by leftist sites who spew astounding amounts of hate and bile. Mr. Adams sounds like he would would fit in quite well at the latter. I'm sure you know the places I'm talking about toM and Bill; see DU, KOS, Atrios, etc.

#22 David Johnson on 2005-09-13 10:14 (Reply)

The more I hear the catchphrases of the left the more I am reminded of the bleating sheep in Orwell's animal farm.
They sure love their catchphrases because it makes it easy to chant and drown out any actual reasoned debate.
I know someone that, if he stubbed his toe, would likely scream out "goddamn Bush!"

#23 GW Crawford on 2005-09-13 10:21 (Reply)

Sounds spot on to me, he just said it with more flair.

#24 Tom A. on 2005-09-13 10:26 (Reply)

Yep, another rehash of the NYT editorial page the past 5 years (excepting Brooks and Freidman).

What's most frustrating to me about this left these days is that their standards of evidence are extremely low.

For something to be considered true, 1) someone with some presumed authority (an "expert" for example) makes a claim
2) it fits the world view of Bush as stupid, evil, racist, incompetent, and greedy

QED, eh?

#24.1 equitus on 2005-09-13 21:19 (Reply)

Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Powerline etc. trump with easy all others in the category of diseased invective wouldn't you agree?

But once again, refute the first paragraph, try just a single criticism. Try this one "ill-informed", defend it.

Bill Timmons

#25 Bill Timmons on 2005-09-13 10:32 (Reply)

Bill, that's not how it works. You're the proponent of the assertion. As such you should support the assertion that Bush is ill-informed.

Here, since you seem to need help with this I'll make the prima facie case that your assertion is false. The man graduated from Yale, with (slightly) better grades than John Kerry.

#25.1 Matt on 2005-09-13 10:49 (Reply)

Precisely why the American left will not win any national election for the foreseeable future--totally out of touch with (1) reality and (2) the american polity. Hint: it isnt sean penn, moveon.org, howard dean etc--these are the hate filled morons. We need to encourage this sort of tripe--keeps republicans in the majority for years to come.

#26 RogerA on 2005-09-13 10:34 (Reply)

It's clear (to me at least) that the author was taking notes on what Tyrrell and the rest of the American Spectator crowd was braying from '92 to '00, and decided to recycle it.

And yes, that's exactly what it looks like. Nice to see the expected reaction - comparable to dumping chum in shark-infested waters.

#27 Robert on 2005-09-13 11:02 (Reply)

So confusing. the guy who wrote the elitist bs that spawned this thread is an example of the elitist educated. But Bush is smart because he got decent grades at Yale. Make up your mind.

You really want me to link to all the examples of Bush's ill informed nature?
Here's one, When he said no one knew the levees were going to break, his excuse for that four days later is typical cya.

Here's another, WMD. Here's another Karl Rove WAS involved with the Plame leak. Here's another Mike Brown didn't know a thing about emergency management. etc. etc. etc.

#28 Bill Timmons on 2005-09-13 11:15 (Reply)

"So confusing. the guy who wrote the elitist bs that spawned this thread is an example of the elitist educated. But Bush is smart because he got decent grades at Yale. Make up your mind.

You really want me to link to all the examples of Bush's ill informed nature?
Here's one, When he said no one knew the levees were going to break, his excuse for that four days later is typical cya.

Here's another, WMD. Here's another Karl Rove WAS involved with the Plame leak. Here's another Mike Brown didn't know a thing about emergency management. etc. etc. etc."
Really, Karl Rove was involved, how come no indictment by the prosecuter? WMD? Bush was wrong, British, French, Russian intelligence was wrong?
You have qualified as a major league ASSHAT! Since you are so in love with letters, maybe you should STFU, or ESAD.

#28.1 richardeverett on 2005-09-13 15:26 (Reply)

#27 you are mostly correct, it is very similar to what was said about Clinton, and you can see how well it worked at defeating him. You would think that a former Clinton official would understand that.

BCN

#29 bcn on 2005-09-13 11:27 (Reply)

Oh Bill, you had me at "WMD".

Really, Mr. Timmons, placing three letters in succession does not an argument make. Are you really this obtuse, or just yanking my chain? It's like arguing with my autistic brother, but less informative.

#30 Kevin F on 2005-09-13 11:29 (Reply)

Sorry about your brother, autism is a tragic disease that destroy's many lives. What's obtuse about WMD. You want me to retell the tale? You should understand what I am implying. It's a good examlpe of ill informed, in fact probably the best one. But like so many dullards you took something simple, pulled it out of context and talked about it and made a weakly snide remark, instead of addressing how thst simple acronym displays a powerful connection between Bush and the belief that at best he is ill informed, at worst deceitful.

#31 Bill Timmons on 2005-09-13 11:36 (Reply)

[Warning: Long. All requsite apologies]
Mr. Timmons wrote: "What's obtuse about WMD." Any honest and accurate analysis of Bush's decision to go to war against Hussein is based upon how the decison squares with the information available at the time and the context of the times. Let's see what the thought leaders from the reality-based community thought then about Saddam's pursuit of WMD and what they were telling America:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.
No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print
========
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
========
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
=======
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831
=======
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
=======

Whether Saddam had WMD or not is not the key question when judging Bush's decision to wage war against Hussein. Rather, what did history, experience, and our current intelligence tell us at the time about Saddam's WMD, and then based on that information, what was the best course of action for our nation in the context of that information and the times. The answer to that was expressed quite clearly at the time by those cited above as well as many, many others - George Bush among them.

#31.1 Dean Aswell on 2005-09-13 14:19 (Reply)

Good work, Dean. Thanks for putting that together.

Unfortunately, your efforts are completely wasted on Timmons and his lot. I countered my lefty friends with the same argument once and they were entirely unable to grasp it - struck dumb.

Don't expect a reply, and if you get one you can bet he'll try to change the subject.

#31.1.1 equitus on 2005-09-13 21:12 (Reply)

Good job, Bill. I know space is short, but there are a lot more quotes from Democrats/Liberals that say the same thing. It is amazing how the left has such a short memory! These hypocrits - when it helped their cause, they agreed that Sadaam should be taken out. Now that the deed is done, they are attacking Bush to try and make him look bad. Total hypocrits.

#31.2 Joe Goodhouse on 2005-09-13 19:03 (Reply)

If he thinks I'm paying tuition for my kids to go to the college where he teaches his obvious lack-luster skills of persuasion-he is-

NUTS!

#32 anon on 2005-09-13 12:30 (Reply)

My daughter goes to GWU. Time to transfer, if this is representative of what they hire.

#33 Biff on 2005-09-13 12:42 (Reply)

Here's my submission for an article to be printed in the NY Times sometime real soon I'm sure.

"We have a mayor and governor who are apparently ill-informed, lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by corrupt cronies, secular fundamentalist crazies and left-wing extremists and ideologues. They appointed officials who give incompetence new meaning, who replace the positive role of government with expensive baloney.
...

It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly, troglodyte crowd of Lousiana state and city insiders, rich lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden gracefully and mindfully out of Louisiana and returned to their caves, clubs in hand."

Ok, I admit it. Since I have just a bit less time on my hands than a college professor (I'm unemployed) just like him I went over to "www.fanatic-lefty-idiot-spews-while-U-wait.com" and inserted the words 'governor', 'mayor', and 'Lousisiana' in the keyword fields after clicking on "Screeds against government officials" (I had to overtype the default entry of BusHitler in each field). I then selected "Ear-splitting Invective With Extra Spittle Ejection". I didn't change the default 'Intellectual Level:" value of "Drooling Moron" (the default choice). Then just before clicking on the "Spew to Power Baby!" button to generate my very own personal and clearly well-thought-out article suitable for printing in the leftist media rag of my choice, I selected the "Use Maximum Display of Bush Derangement Syndrome Symptoms" radio button - for that little extra dash.

Voila...

Oh cripes. I must have forgot to uncheck "To Be Spewed While Head Held in Compassionate Head-Tilt Position". Somehow it just doesn't seem to work well with this one...

#34 Dean Aswell on 2005-09-13 12:49 (Reply)

This guy Bush, that Gordon Adams reports is a bottom feeder, is the same guy most of the left is chastising for not seizing the reins from Blanco and Nagin and personally directing the effort in New Orleans.

Why would they want such an obviously incompetent guy to take over from the elected city and state officials? Just asking!

#35 Ed Poinsett on 2005-09-13 13:03 (Reply)

Could you please just look past the fire and brimstone and deal with the substance?
What the man is saying - not in a very constructive way, granted - is that Bush & Co has basically betrayed the country, by incompetence and ill will.

Can somebody please paint me a credible opposite picture.

Mind you, I'm anti-neocon/anti-Bush, nor anti-Republican. Unless something extraordinary happens, I'm for McCain in '08

#36 Omni on 2005-09-13 16:18 (Reply)

Omni wrote: "What the man is saying - not in a very constructive way, granted - is that Bush & Co has basically betrayed the country, by incompetence and ill will."

The man is making a very onerous and strong charge against the president of the United States, yet provides no substantiation whatsoever to support his claim. It can only be assumed he expects us to believe just because he wrote it. I'm sure you and I would agree that would be a stupid thing to do.

His fundamental claim that Bush lied about WMD is clearly refuted in post #31.1 above.

Unless and until the man comes back with actual, verifiable substantiation for his claim that Bush knowingly lied to the American people, and also proving then too that the Democratic politicans cited (in comment #31.1) who agreed with Bush also lied, he simply has no case.

It would be patently foolish to comment further on what is clearly a fallacious claim. He of course did not create this claim. The claim has persisted for a long time and is believed clearly as an act of faith by many predisposed to believing such things. However, as with Chupacabra, the fact that some or even many believe in it, does not make it true. Especially in the abscence of proof.

#36.1 Dean Aswell on 2005-09-13 16:55 (Reply)

"Bush & Co has basically betrayed the country, by incompetence and ill will"

Huh? What's your standard of "competence" - an ideal or other politicians? "ill will" toward whom?

I'm not a big Bush fan (but EGADS, given the alternatives), but I find him adequately competent and I see no evidence of ill will - he's been doing what he said he would do since he was elected (aside from the nation building bit, which counts as good will in my book).

He's honest. He generally accomplishes what he tries to accomplish (we can only hope there's time for Social Security) and he's doing what the people who elected him want him to do.

You may disagree with what he's doing - but if he's succeeding at doing it, that's proof he's competent - but why would you assume he bears anyone "ill will" rather than a mere difference of opinion on what should be done?

#36.2 mrsizer (Homepage) on 2005-09-13 21:09 (Reply)

I must admit I find anyone from the Clinton adminsitration assailing the honesty and competence of anyone else with bemusement bordering on hysterical laughter.

#37 Thomas J. Jackson on 2005-09-13 18:41 (Reply)

Dave said, "Unfortunately, name calling and invective is what passes for "reasoned debate" and "analysis" for far too many on the left these days."

What do you mean "these days"? Liberals have never let reasoned debate or analysis get in the way of their self interest. Thomas Jefferson was only elected due to the combined vote of the slave population (reduced by 5/8ths as per the coerced "compromise" which polutes our constitution), and those slaves didn't really have a choice about who they were going to vote for.
Then Tommy J had his main opponent assasssinated,- by his vice president no less- thus leaving us with a string of liberal democrats from the end of John Adams admin, straight on though to Lincoln.
History profs - like this guy here - gloss over Aaron Burr killing A. Hamilton, like it was just the thing to do back in old time America.
But to put it in perspective imagine in 1980 if Walter Mondale had shot Ronald Reagan at close range , killing him dead. What would America be like now?

That's the sort of people we have been dealing with right along from the start.
This is no new phenomina from liberals.

#38 James Mayeau on 2005-09-15 05:52 (Reply)

Cindy S,Nancy P...hope this is not the future faces of America.The terrorist love these people.

#39 eugene zenov (Homepage) on 2007-01-04 19:24 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Monday, September 12. 2005

Tell Us What You Really ... er, 'Think'

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Monday, September 12. 2005

Tell Us What You Really ... er, 'Think'

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites