Views From The Center/Right

"This administration is waging war on poor children," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. "The reality is that they are steadily and surely trying to turn the clock back on all of the programs and supports that working families and their children need and deserve."

SAY WHAT? Yep, that is a good way to make friends and have influence with the Bush administration. Why doesn't she just say it, "George W. Bush is trying to kill poor children". I never want to hear another word about partisanship from her.

Posted 6/05/2003 09:39:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Thoughts on Liberal/Progressive Leadership in this Country

A liberal/progressive friend of mine brought up some issues that set my mind off on some thoughts and tangents about the Democratic leadership in this country. Here it goes.....

When did the term "progressives" become the normal word? That's just a cleaner word than liberal which the radicals from the 60's destroyed. I liked and respected the old liberals like JFK, Truman, FDR. Seems the new progressives (Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, Howard Dean, Hillary, Dennis Kucinich, Babs Boxer & Striesand, Ted Kennedy, Susan Sarandon) are more socialist than anything and seem to like to blame America first for all the problems in the world and there is nothing that a government program (i.e. spending) can't fix.

Conservatives believe differently about many issues but some of the goals are the same. The big difference is the method. The environment....believe it or not conservatives want clean water, air, lower pollution. The progressive method is to add more and more regulations to companies. In California, companies are always tempted to move because of overregulation. Some regulation is good but the progressives in this state have gone to far for too long. If you want to clean up things there needs to be a balance between laws and incentives. That's the conservative approach.

Progressives want to maintain the forests and so do conservatives. What has happened though is the progressives have made it impossible to clean out some of the forest so when there is a fire it spreads like crazy. Conservatives want to thin out areas and make fire lines so it won't spread too much. Both have great end goals but I thing the conservative way works better.

Now, progressives will howl about the Alaskan Arctic Preserve and how we can't drill for oil there. First, how many of them actually have gone there? How many of them realize that the people of Alaska want drilling there? How many of them realize that it's only a very small part where the drilling would occur? From the left there is no balance, the caribou reign supreme so no drilling. Doesn't matter that very little of the millions of acres would be touched and it could reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Heck, the area is frozen over more than half the time. Technology has made the drilling process very clean and unobtrusive.

In terms of "social justice" it comes down to philosophy and extremes. Most political progressives I see believe we should take money from the rich and give it to the poor. That's always the bottom line. It doesn't matter if the rich person has earned it. Conservatives believe that there does need to be a safety net but how big? Conservatives believe that it's up to individuals to step up to the plate and help. Of course progressive Al Gore gave a grand total of $353 dollars to charity in either 1996 or 1997. Another progressive Bill Bradley (a multi-millionaire) gave away very small amounts also in the 1990's. Of course, they love to have all these great government programs but personally, they take a pass. Many of us conservatives believe that is backwards.

Government also does not do the best of jobs with many things. Once money goes from the tax payer to the person needing help the money is less than half what it originally was. All sorts of departments take a share off of the top. The government does some things well (fight wars comes to mind) but mostly very inefficiently.

Medicare.... conservatives have always been labeled they want to cut Medicare. Not true, we want to fix something that is very broke. The "progressives" only want to just pour more money into it and give prescription drugs to everybody. Conservatives want to give prescription drugs to the needy. 91 year old Ronald Reagan does not need free drugs. So with the impasse nobody gets them.

Race.... just because somebody doesn't believe in affirmative action does not mean they are bigoted or want to not give equal opportunity or believe in social justice. Of course, progressives don't seem to see it that way. Two days before the last Presidential Election, Albert Arnold Algore Jr. was at a prayer breakfast with an African-American congregation. He said that Bush wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who would interpret the constitution with the 3/5ths clause. A total race bait. Nothing like polluting the water. When doofus's like Trent Lott make stupid race comments they are tossed. Progressive Bill Clinton went on black radio before the 1998 congressional elections and blamed conservatives for church burnings. Progressives keep voting in Robert "KKK" Byrd to his seat in the Senate and nobody on the left will investigate or even ask what he did in the KKK. I won't even get into the progressive "Reverend" Jesse Jackson. Just more poison.

After the OK City bombing Clinton sent out Carville and Begala to blame Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for poisoning the air and giving the atmosphere for it to occur. It didn't matter that the bombers where so out "there" that they would consider Rush a liberal and didn't listen to him. Did George W. Bush go after Clinton and the left for missing out on getting Bin Ladin. They had him but passed it up. Did he blame Clinton for cutting off many of the CIA assets in the Middle East in the mid-90's? No. He rallied everybody and didn't blame anybody except the terrorists that did the murders. Just seems that all that good will is out the door because once 9/11 calmed down the left seemed to begin playing politics and tried to blame Bush for what happened. The things Hillary said are just atrocious.

From the list of progressives I listed above I haven't learned anything from them other than, in a post 9/11 world, it's not safe to vote Democrat. They are too far left. Most will cut defense just like Clinton did. Most of the "reinventing government" was in getting rid of civilian military folks (thanks Rummy for getting some of it fixed real quick and bringing back the morale). Most of them will vote against banning partial-birth abortion. Talk about extreme. I'm a center-right bleeding heart conservative. I believe in helping people but on my own, with my own free will. I'm also 100% anti-abortion, support the death penalty, want lower taxes for everybody. I believe in a very strong defense and that sometimes the best defense is an offense (like the war on terror). I also believe in a safety net but every since the leaders of our country screwed with the Social Security trust fund in 1969 it's been messed up.

Again, the progressives shout down the conservatives when they try to fix something so SS is still broke. They go down to Florida and say Republicans want to take your SS away. We just believe that it should be there for the seniors now and for my kids much later. How do we fix it? We're trying but that third rail is hot.

I believe there are many good and kind hearted liberals. They just aren't to the left enough to gain national prominence. In order to be the Democratic nominee or to be on the ticket as VP they will have to be 100% pro-choice - abortion allowed at all times including the last weeks for any reason. FYI, George W. Bush is not 100% pro-life. He does make exceptions but he was still nominated, just like Dole and his father.

The most compassionate and giving man I've ever met is to the right of me on many issues. He gives so much time and money to helping children all over the world. There are many more like him on the right. They believe that it's better to do the job themselves than to wait for the government to do it. The left does not have a monopoly on compassion at all.

Posted 6/05/2003 12:14:00 AM by got switchfoot?

6.03.2003

WMDs

It took 5 years to capture Eric Rudolph. After less than 3 months some folks are saying there aren't any. Sorry, that just sounds silly. Everyone was admitting that Iraq had them (see this). Heck, even the UN thought they had them. If the UN didn't think they had them then why did they have sanctions? They are somewhere but they will be hard to find. That is one big desert and I think Syria probably received some of them (remember they have a Baath party also). We have found 2 mobile labs. Nobody can convince me those were just for pesticides.

Posted 6/03/2003 10:53:00 PM by got switchfoot?

5.31.2003

Eleanor Clift Displays Her Knowledge and Bias

Fiction and the Tax Cut Newsweek Web Exclusive Under the glittering chandeliers of the East Room of the White House, President Bush signed into law the most wealth-oriented tax bill in history.
Here she goes

THE INTERESTS OF the invited guests, mostly prosperous looking men in dark blue suits, were well-represented when congressional leaders put the finishing touches on the bill, preserving Bush's dividend tax cut while a $400 child credit for millions of low-wage families was eliminated.
OK, now she's starting. What is the purpose of this tax cut.... to get the economy rolling.

It was one of those nuggets that exposes the truth. Bush's tax cut was never about economic stimulus, or the rebate would have been directed toward the people who will spend it, not the rich who just get richer. Senate and House conferees brushed away the crumbs slated for those making barely more than minimum wage in order to maintain the fiction that the bill comes in under the Senate's $350 billion cap. In a bill already loaded with gimmicks, couldn't they have found one more phony accounting device to preserve the one tax break that makes economic and social sense?
See, all Bush wants to do is give more money to his millionare buddies. He doesn't care about the economy.

When I put that question to a Republican staffer, he said there was no one in the room who cared, not the principals, not the staff, and they didn't need Democrat Blanche Lincoln's vote anymore. She was the lawmaker who pressed the Senate to expand the child credit to include more low-income parents. Almost half the taxpayers in Lincoln's home state of Arkansas report taxable incomes of less than $20,000. Under the bill's formula, families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 will not benefit. The GOP staffer went on to say he didn't know whether his party was moved more by hubris or money, but he did know the people who just got screwed weren't at the president's dinner last week when Bush raised $22 million for Republican campaigns.
So, she wants to GIVE money back to people who don't pay federal taxes anyway? Yep, that will make the ecomomy grow.

Bush's critics inside and outside his party are suffering from outrage exhaustion. How much can Bush get away with before the public and the media hold him accountable? If this shameful provision is not repealed, 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17 ,will be shortchanged according to The Center on Budget and Priorities, an admittedly liberal group, but whose facts are not disputed. Keep an eye on the media and whether the networks pick up the story, first reported in Thursday's New York Times. If the Times story resonates, Karl Rove and his tag team of compassionate conservatives will do damage control, pledging perhaps to correct the omission with another tax bill in the fall, which they will see as an opportunity to push through still more cuts for upper-income voters.
Hey, if they want to have a GIVE AWAY then bring it up in another bill. That is not a tax cut. If we are going to give money to people that don't pay federal taxes then there must be corresponding cuts in spending. The people receiving the tax credit PAY FEDERAL TAXES.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are upset about the administration's arrogance. They're tired of getting the brush-off when they ask what happened to the weapons of mass destruction allegedly in Iraq and where's the administration's plan for the war's aftermath? Negative sentiment is growing as Congress comes to grips with the length of time (years, not months) and money (billions) and manpower (hundreds of thousands) it will take to rebuild Iraq. Just as Bush dissembled on the cost of the war, refusing to put a price tag on it until the bombs were falling, he hasn't come clean with Congress or the American people about the war's aftermath, or how it will squeeze domestic programs.
Now she really gets down to it. She's against the war with Iraq and is still trying to justify her opposition. Look, it's better to admit you are wrong. How soon we forget that this is a war on terror. Iraq is just one battle. Yes, it's all about domestic programs (for Clift that just means more spending on social programs). Sorry, no domestic program will stop terrorists. About WMD, they've found many labs and facilities that are capable of processing chemical weapons. What are those MOBIL labs for? Pesticides? Don't think so. My guess is that all the delay time allowed Saddam to hide the weapons real well or they are in Syria.

The economic rationale for this tax cut is dubious, but its political impact is clear. It's a cynical device to re-elect the president and put the country in hock. One Senate Republican dubs it "The Rangers Relief Act," after the newly created category of Bush donors who contribute at least $200,000 to his re-election. (The Pioneers used to be the high-rollers at $100,000 plus; now the Rangers, named after the baseball team Bush owned, are the heavy hitters.) "The tax cut reimburses the donors before they've given," says the Senate Republican, noting the added benefit of starving the government of resources to support the programs that Democrats typically champion, like Social Security and Medicare.
Sorry, wrong again. Sure there are some high rollers but most of what Bush built up was from individuals who were limited to giving $1,000. Also, please show me where Social Security and Medicare are being cut. Which bill is that?

More than 2 million jobs have been lost since Bush became president, yet it feels in Washington as if we're living in a second Gilded Age. Worries about income inequality or imbalance are treated like quaint notions from another era. A report touts a new casino opening in Atlantic City that will feature thousand-dollar coins for slot machines. The clientele it hopes to attract won't be spending the milk money. Richer Americans send their children to private schools, so who cares if Bush's much heralded "No Child Left Behind" education bill is woefully underfunded. There is no counterbalance to the corporate priorities of the Bush administration and the shifting of the tax burden to lower-earning Americans in order to free up the capital of the rich. Still, it is a gamble for Bush. If the economy doesn't recover sufficiently, can he blame it on the Democrats for not giving him everything he wanted?
This recession started in 2000 before Bush was even in office. He caught the downside of the economy. Would somebody please show me how the tax burden is being shifted to lower Americans? This is just a lie. In the last 2 tax cuts EVERYBODY who pays federal taxes gets a tax cut. Sorry Eleanor Rodham Clift, it's the people with money that spur the economy and provide jobs. They also pay for most of the taxes. 98.09% of all taxes revenue comes from the top 50% wage earners, 67.3% is paid by 10% of the top wage earners and 56.47% is paid by the top 5% earners based on Y2K IRS data. (The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1986 - 2000). A few years ago it was that Republicans wanted to poison the water and let old people die of starvation. Now it's more class warfare. For people to get and keep jobs, the people with the money need less of a tax burden.

Posted 5/31/2003 12:24:00 AM by got switchfoot?

5.29.2003

Amnesty International - Becoming Irrelevent?

From foxnews.com: WASHINGTON — Operation Iraqi Freedom added to human misery worldwide because it increased rights violations, gave despots license to treat dissidents cruelly, and kept the world from debating human rights more vigorously, Amnesty International (search) said Wednesday. In its annual report on human rights, the non-governmental organization said the worthy achievements of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and bringing freedom to Iraqi people have been tainted by the rise of violations it blames on the United States and its coalition partners. non-governmental organization - whatever. Mostly more "Blame America first" types. "This is a case of throwing the baby out with the Baath Party," said William Schulz (search), executive director of Amnesty International. Iraqi lawlessness itself is a violation of human rights, the group said. It said Operation Iraqi Freedom left much of Iraq in chaos where criminals run rampant and where the basic needs necessary for human rights to emerge — water, health care, security — don't exist. Yes, bring back Saddam. He made the trains run on time. Come on folks, this will be ugly for a while but it's going to get better. The group did concede that discovery of mass graves and torture chambers speak to the scope of Saddam's brutality. "We, of course, celebrate the end of his regime to the extent to which it results in the end of human rights violations, which it certainly does," Schulz said. Gee, thanks. The White House and State Department responded that Amnesty has it backwards. Exposure of the brutality of Saddam's regime is doing more to advance the cause of human rights than years of U.N. resolutions and previous Amnesty reports ever accomplished. No. It's all about oil. The administration added that freedom from tyranny is the fundamental human right from which all others eventually flow. These AI leaders are just so comfortable in their little world. Put them in Iraq, living under Saddam. "The world is rejoicing in the fact that, thanks to the efforts of the coalition, millions of people previously imprisoned are now free," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. Gonna miss Ari But Amnesty argues the coalition of the willing comes with its own human rights baggage. It cites the Philippines, where civilians have been falsely arrested, wounded and killed in the joint U.S.-Philippine effort to eradicate the Abu Sayyef (search) Islamic militant group. Nothing is perfect except AI. "The smoke of the battlefields of Iraq and the war against terrorism have unfortunately obscured human rights violations elsewhere in the world," Schulz said. Schulz also argued that the United States is giving many repressive governments a reprieve on their human rights violations because of their willingness to support the war on terror, for instance, Yemen, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Amnesty also criticized tactics in the war on terror such as the U.S. detention of battlefield combatants in Cuba, a practice the United States stoutly defends. "The people who are under detention in Guantanamo are being treated according to the standards of the third Geneva Convention and that as combatants, they need to be taken off the field as long as the fighting is going on," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. The administration added that Amnesty misses a key point in the war on terror — that terror groups, not nation states, pose the greatest threat to human rights. Finding and fighting terrorists where they hide is not always work that conforms neatly to the Geneva Convention. While Amnesty charged that the Iraq war distracted from the discussion on how to improve human rights worldwide, it did not offer any opinion on whether it was satisfied with Libya's chairmanship of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Amnesty cites Libya as a regular violator of human rights — one that routinely imprisons dissidents and tortures prisoners. It's much funner to bash the US. Let's find all the imperfections of an imperfect war and go after them. America is not perfect but we're fighting a war on terror that too many folks would rather ignore. I'd rather get the bad guys before they strike again. Fox News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.

Posted 5/29/2003 12:47:00 AM by got switchfoot?

4.17.2003

Good Friday

This article goes into graphic detail, from a physicians point of view, about the aweful death that the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, went through because of our sins. I've got my hand in redemption's side These scars are bigger than these doubts of mine - Jonathan M. Foreman "Redemption" from "The Beautiful Letdown"

Posted 4/17/2003 11:45:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Go Listen To Switchfoot Now

If you've never heard the band, Switchfoot, go listen to this song now!

Posted 4/17/2003 11:21:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Gotta Watch Joe Scarborough

My new favorite TV show is Scarborough Country on MSNBC at 7:00 PM PST. It's hosted by former Congressman, Joe Scarborough. All you Fox News folks, turn off Greta and go to MSNBC and watch Joe, then go back to Fox News. He's very articulate but keeps a good sense of humor. He is responsible for this great phrase, "Freedom isn't free, unless you live in France."

Posted 4/17/2003 11:15:00 PM by got switchfoot?

4.11.2003

Who's Smarter?

For the last few months we've been hearing from the Hollywood lefties. The act as if they really know what they are talking about. Heck, I think one of them really thinks he's president. Well, here's a piece about the education of these lefties and compares it to the people in the Bush administration. Of course education isn't everything but this will at least let us know that these folks do not know what they are talking about.

Posted 4/11/2003 09:29:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Thomas Sowell, Way Smarter Than Me

Random Thoughts

Posted 4/11/2003 03:52:00 PM by got switchfoot?

OUTRAGES

Outrage 1 From an article in Time Magazine in an interview with Scott Ritter, former UN Inspector: "The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." What kind of twisted morality is this? Outrage 2 From the NY Timesby the chief news executive of CNN: April 11, 2003 The News We Kept to Ourselves By EASON JORDAN ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed. I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us. Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad. Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home. I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN. Again, what kind of morality is this? It's more important to have a phoney bologna news service in Iraq than to alert people about dreaded human rights abuses.

Posted 4/11/2003 12:35:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Letterman and Baghdad Bob

About the information guy in Iraq (where is he?)...here's Letterman's Top 10 about the guy: Top Ten Things Iraq's Information Minister Has To Say About The War 10. "We're pulling down the statues of Saddam to have them cleaned" 9. "Don't believe that stuff you see on CNN...or NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox or MSNBC" 8. "If you ask me who the winner is, it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" 7. "Iraqi television is off the air because we didn't want you to have to sit through 'Becker'" 6. "Do you know of any job openings for a lying weasel?" 5. "Wolf Blitzer and I are engaged" 4. "Iraqis are in the streets celebrating Cher's 40 fabulous years in show business" 3. "Incoming!" 2. "Saddam's not dead -- he's just out with a case of the shingles" 1. "War? What war?"

Posted 4/11/2003 09:13:00 AM by got switchfoot?

Just a little off

Hey Peter Arnett, you were just a little wrong, eh? Hope it was worth getting fired.

Posted 4/11/2003 01:09:00 AM by got switchfoot?

An ebay opportunity

I wish all the stuff they are finding in the palaces could be auctioned off on ebay. All the money could go back to rebuilding Iraq or distributed to the people. The Saddamites totally looted the country. It's the Iraqi people's money. Let's give it back to them.

Posted 4/11/2003 12:57:00 AM by got switchfoot?

Where's Waldo

Where's Tariq Aziz?

Posted 4/11/2003 12:55:00 AM by got switchfoot?

War, Props and Dems

BTW, the war in Iraq isn't over. Still lots of work to do. Gotta take Tikrit, stop the looting, do a real inspection for WMD and turn the country back over to the people of Iraq. So far, so good. Major props to Rumsfeld and Franks. Incredible progress and lots of love for the troops from the people of Iraq. Loved Cheney smacking down the "embedded" generals, Big Time. Here's why Democrats need new leadership: DEM HOUSE LEADER PELOSI TOLD REPORTERS THURSDAY: 'I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REGRET ABOUT MY VOTE [AGAINST] THIS WAR. THE SAME QUESTIONS REMAIN. THE COST IN HUMAN LIVES, THE COST TO OUR BUDGET, PROBABLY 100 BILLION. WE COULD HAVE PROBABLY BROUGHT DOWN THAT STATUE FOR A LOT LESS' Even though I'm a die-hard Republican I hope the Democrats can get some new leadership that has a sense of national security. After 9/11 it's still not very safe to vote for most Democrats. Very sad. Where is FDR, Truman or JFK?

Posted 4/11/2003 12:54:00 AM by got switchfoot?

4.10.2003

Found Him

Where is Baghdad Bob/Bill? Here could be here pimping for the evil IRL (for you non-racing fans, never mind).

Posted 4/10/2003 11:20:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Good News Guys

I've been pleasantly surprised at MSNBC's coverage. They even seem to understand that it's OK to root for the good guys. Love Joe Scarborough's show. Way better than Greta on Fox. I miss David Bloom and Michael Kelly. They were the best of the best. David Bloom was way cool riding in the desert for MSNBC. Michael Kelly was frequently on the Hugh Hewitt show.

Posted 4/10/2003 11:13:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Tikrit

Praying for our troops as they head for Tikrit. This seems to be the last stand for the Saddamites. Hopefully they won't use WMD's against the Allies.

Posted 4/10/2003 11:03:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Hello, World!

Hey, is this thing on?

Posted 4/10/2003 10:58:00 PM by got switchfoot?

Freedom isn't free, unless you live in France - Joe Scarborough

Home