A lot has happened in the world since my last post. Bill Clinton’s pathological lying has returned just as he was rehabilitating his image. The guy is just the gift that keeps on giving. How many actual factual lies did he crowd into so few minutes on Fox? Far more importantly, a traitor in the United States government has released a part of the content of among the most secret of government documents.
It turns out that the NIE does not say that the Iraq war has made the United States less safe; far from it. The NIE concludes that while Iraq has become the “cause celebre`” for jihadists failure, or perceived failure, in Iraq would discourage participation in jihad itself. This conclusion is, if course, a direct refutation of the Democrat strategy of retreat and the yarns they were spinning before the actual text was released. The NIE conclusion sounds a lot like an assessment of Iraq as the Central Front in the War on Terror-to borrow a phrase. The report reaches several other conclusions that support Bush policy.
Having shone yet another Democrat claim as merely election year spinning of the lowest order, the larger issue is how best to exploit this opportunity to make two very important points to the public. First, that the New York Times is routinely aiding and abetting the enemies of this country by publishing top secret materials stolen from the government, appears axiomatic. The NIE story, like so many previous Times iterations of the anti-Bush template, is presented grossly out of context. We need to take a lesson from the Clinton propaganda machine attack on Fox.
Beginning with the White House, Republicans should respond to every Times story with an overview of the Times', and through it the larger bias in the mainstream media, open ideological bias and history of false and misleading reportage. From promoting the monumental lies of Joseph Wilson to this latest misleading NIE report, we need to educate the public about this pervasive liberal bias, although the Times declining audience speaks volumes in itself. Why would the average voter want to give the Times any more credibility than the DNC and Howard Dean?
Second, we need to shove the findings in their face. Until about four o’clock this afternoon, the Dems were saying the NIE is the “gold standard” of intelligence. It should follow that the NIE conclusion that victory in Iraq would be a major defeat for global jihad would lead to Democrat surrender on the issue. It turns out that the Dems' fall back position is the NIE report is more like a bronze, or perhaps, a tin standard. Irrational Democrat opposition to most things American and everything Bush remains the gold standard of Democrat value judgment, regardless of the real world consequences of that opposition.
We need to make it clear that our Democrat opponents are little more than opportunistic vultures. They rely on leakers-who are traitors to damage public morale so as to implement a policy of retreat and defeat. The result of this global war against Islamofascism is not a forgone conclusion and the choices we make now will determine the outcome.
The choice is simple. Can we afford to ignore thirty years of recent history, and 1500 years of direction before that, in framing our response to Islamofascism? Should we adopt the retreat and defeat model of Vietnam and Somalia or the total victory model of WW2? Which makes you feel safer?
It turns out that the NIE does not say that the Iraq war has made the United States less safe; far from it. The NIE concludes that while Iraq has become the “cause celebre`” for jihadists failure, or perceived failure, in Iraq would discourage participation in jihad itself. This conclusion is, if course, a direct refutation of the Democrat strategy of retreat and the yarns they were spinning before the actual text was released. The NIE conclusion sounds a lot like an assessment of Iraq as the Central Front in the War on Terror-to borrow a phrase. The report reaches several other conclusions that support Bush policy.
Having shone yet another Democrat claim as merely election year spinning of the lowest order, the larger issue is how best to exploit this opportunity to make two very important points to the public. First, that the New York Times is routinely aiding and abetting the enemies of this country by publishing top secret materials stolen from the government, appears axiomatic. The NIE story, like so many previous Times iterations of the anti-Bush template, is presented grossly out of context. We need to take a lesson from the Clinton propaganda machine attack on Fox.
Beginning with the White House, Republicans should respond to every Times story with an overview of the Times', and through it the larger bias in the mainstream media, open ideological bias and history of false and misleading reportage. From promoting the monumental lies of Joseph Wilson to this latest misleading NIE report, we need to educate the public about this pervasive liberal bias, although the Times declining audience speaks volumes in itself. Why would the average voter want to give the Times any more credibility than the DNC and Howard Dean?
Second, we need to shove the findings in their face. Until about four o’clock this afternoon, the Dems were saying the NIE is the “gold standard” of intelligence. It should follow that the NIE conclusion that victory in Iraq would be a major defeat for global jihad would lead to Democrat surrender on the issue. It turns out that the Dems' fall back position is the NIE report is more like a bronze, or perhaps, a tin standard. Irrational Democrat opposition to most things American and everything Bush remains the gold standard of Democrat value judgment, regardless of the real world consequences of that opposition.
We need to make it clear that our Democrat opponents are little more than opportunistic vultures. They rely on leakers-who are traitors to damage public morale so as to implement a policy of retreat and defeat. The result of this global war against Islamofascism is not a forgone conclusion and the choices we make now will determine the outcome.
The choice is simple. Can we afford to ignore thirty years of recent history, and 1500 years of direction before that, in framing our response to Islamofascism? Should we adopt the retreat and defeat model of Vietnam and Somalia or the total victory model of WW2? Which makes you feel safer?
20 comments:
Here is a great link on that liar Clinton.
http://gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6591
Show us the way Uncle Teddy.
Additionally, those considering voting for that America self hating Democratic Party should consider they are lining up with whacko Cindy Sheehan and perpetual ass***** Michael Moore.
The three requirements to be a Democratic leader are as follows:
Hate America as much as possible!
Deny anything good America does.
Be inconsistent with shifting logic and evidence.
As for those that for the Democratic Party they have a few requirements:
Bahhhhhhhhh......
Bahhh......
Bah....
The success rate for battling terrorists head on is much lower than commonly assumed and it lenghtens the conflict in most cases. Terrorism is the radical manifestation of hidden social and cultural tensions, not some sort of relentless evil as you Rep's have told yourselves. Killing one terrorist spawns three new ones. To combat these you have to analyse the issue and find solutions on a broader scale, political, economical, psychological etc. But everyone knows USA isn't in Iraq for terrorists; your're there for the oil and for the releif of letting yourselves forget all about OBL.
And check the polls! Not even the American people belive violence is the solution. Bush is blocking the sun with his thumb, be the only one blind is him. And ya'll, obviously.
President Bush and his forceful, if not outright hilarious, SecDef have sent clear messages to our enemies we will fight you if you threaten us. I just got a great Rummy Quote that is worth posting. I think it answers those that lie and have obviously bad intentions for us.
Reporter: Today, North Korea announced it needs nuclear weapons so it
can reduce the size of it's military. Can you respond to that?
Rumsfeld: North Korea should keep in mind that we also have a plan for
reducing the size of their military, also involving nukes.
You sure know how to paint in blacks and whites, you republicans, but you know jack shit about nuances.
Stereotyped images of Islam as a monolithic religion predisposed toward violence do not do justice to the fact that most Muslims are peaceful. Such stereotypes also fail to take into account the multi-faceted complexity of those Islamic groups that choose violence as a political strategy.
The rise of religious extremism in South Asia and the Middle East has to do primarily with four factors: the absence in much of the Muslim world of democratic, accountable governments, and, indirectly related to this, disputes over contested territory; the failure of governments in some Islamic countries to address problems arising from rapid social, demographic, and economic changes in the last century; financial, logistical, and moral support provided by external actors; and the breakdown within Islam itself of ijtihad—the established tradition whereby religious clerics independently interpret the Koran in order to apply Koranic law to diverse and changing circumstances.
Successful extremist groups have clear missions, rely on a division of labor between relatively young, uneducated "foot soldiers" and better-educated elite operatives, and have developed a variety of fundraising techniques. Many groups rely heavily on the Internet to raise funds, as well as on contributions from foreign governments. The role of funding from the United States and Saudi Arabia, as well as logistical support from the ISI need to be pointed out as well, in the rise of extremist groups in Afghanistan. In the Arab world, the "literate class" is highly critical of the U.S. government for supporting oppressive Arab states.
Understanding that the problem is the hostile ideology of militant Islam, not just the actions of a conspiratorial group, or Islam as a whole, is the first step toward formulating an effective, long-term anti-terrorism strategy. Waving your swords at these people will make more and more of them draw their own. And like I said, if you kill one, you spawn three more.
Poverty, lack of education and democracy is what makes these people take to violence. Not some inbred evil in all Muslims. Claiming so is racist, ignorant and blatant lying. And kenboiraq knows that, which makes him the archetype of a republican in the eyes of the world.
This is completely idiotic. The 70's hangover rises again. Poverty is not what causes terrorism. The 9-11 guys were all wealthy as is Osama.
It wasn't about lack of education either. They tend to be university educated.
It wasn't about land either. Clinton arranged for Arrafat to get everything he said he wanted. He chose instead to issue a Fatwah or a Jihad or whatever they call their excuse for violence.
It really IS the inbred violence taught to them by their religion and their madrassas schools. It is NOT a religion of peace. Christians and Jews don't say "convert of die". Just Islamofascist muslims say "convert or die".
Ask those reporters who were kidnapped and then released. They were released instead of killed because they agreed to convert (lie though it was).
The poverty story just doesn't cut it.
Hey 3:26 You said:
Waving your swords at these people will make more and more of them draw their own. And like I said, if you kill one, you spawn three more.
I say:
Works here too. We are pissed too. They kill one of ours, it spawns three more of us who are going to vote republican so we can kill all those cockroaches instead of "tend" to their delicate feelings.
It ain't poverty it's the religion of violence:
"In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.
"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."
Suicide for Allah a 'win-win'
"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.
"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."
Nuf Said
Did anyone see Hamid Karzai's response to AP reporter Jennifer Loven's question at Tuesday's WH press conference? She asked, "Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?"
Watch his response at the end of this clip:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/26/must-see-video-karzai-responds-to-reporters-question-about-terrorism/
We MUST be steadfast and true in our support of this fledgling democracy and others like it in the middle east. And I'm so tired of the left wingers screeching "It's all about oil..." Well, if you are so warped that you really believe it's all about oil, then BLAME YOURSELVES. It's Democrats who keep us from drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. A domestic source of oil. What a concept.
From my point of view, America is trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. The number of deaths from terrorist attacks have trippled since 2001. But I guess you're happy with how it's working out, this "head on" tactic of yours? Well, the rest of the world fucking ain't!
And I bet you sit on your hands wondering why the people of Iraq doesn't salute you as bringers of freedom and peace? Well, let me tell you; it's because you're getting so many of them killed. 45 000 so far, but you're only warming up I suppose.
You know, I have a good idea; lets solve the terrorism problem with some state terrorism! America knows all about that, you've had a hundred fucking years of practice! If you would half the money on rebuilding these countries insead of on bombs and guns, you would be a lot more popular around there. Instead you're leaving a poor country in ruins and with even less hope of democrazy as they see their houses crumble before them.
You say; you're either with us or against us.
Well, if you look through THEIR eyes for a second (Republicans lack compassion, but give it a go at least). Who would you support; an oppresive invasion force killing your loved ones, or "freedom fighters" killing the opressors? Please note, before you going flippin mad, that I don't necesarily see it that way, just that the people of Iraq might.
And please listen to the other Anonymous guy, he seems to know his shit.
Anonymous guy knows his sh**? Refusing to apologize for terrorism or refuting it is not somebody I would consider worthy of any rational opinion. As to the "Hyrdra Argument" you used laced with profuse profanity I reject it. We can cut off the heads faster than they grow and radical islam does respond to force - it is in fact the only language they understand well. 100 years of state terrorism? So, America bailing Europe out from two wars and stopping Nazi Germany from executing 6 million Jews (wait - radical Islam likes that one) was America practicing state terrorism?
And, oh yeah, Iraqis did welcome us as Liberators. I drove those streets in the beginning and remember their relief of our arrival. Of course, they were Shiite and the Sunnis hated us from the start but that is the problem with that area - those in power oppress and kill while those out of power want to do the same once in power. What happened is Al Queda came in and started killing Shiites and comparing America to Israel (favorite tactic of radical islamists) and poof - instant civil war. We can stop it or mitigate it but we can't stop people intent on killing each other entirely.
The 45,000 dead is debateable but what is not is those that did most of the killing - sunni terrorists. But, you blame the Americans for this debacle. How about the Arab gvts that NEED us there to keep radical Islam in both the Shia Sunni split from blowing up beyond measure? Iran, unchecked, takes Mecca and has been guilty of trying to blow up the Kaaba (spelling may be wrong) as recently as the 80's. Iran has been a state sponsor of terror since the overthrow of the Shah - the guy that gave women a right to be alive and offended the Ayatollas by doing that. President Carter and that idiot Anthonly Lake let this happen and failed to anticipate what a state sponsor of terror with massive oil wealth would do to the world.
Democratic Passion is...Al Gore and John Kerry slashing our CIA and FBI to the point we can't read terrorist intercepts? WTC '93 saw many commissions that all concluded we would face further Islamo terrorism with a likely target the WTC. We even predicted the airline weapon since they tried it unsuccessfully in 1995 Manila. But Al Gore, appointed by President Clinton to upgrade our security on airlines decided profiling was wrong and intercepting emails/phone calls was an invasion of privacy not worth looking into further.
So how is any reasonable person concerned with the security of American Citizens can listen to anon 2:14? Where is the groundswell of support from the American Military to come home? Not there, minus a few and Cindy Sheehan with the military only saying lets get the job done right and send more troops.
Liberals are silly and their arguments strike only to emotions and not logic. As to a plan, Notice they never have one but they love blaming the victims (AMERICA 9-11) for responding. The root cause is radical Islam and we either face it or run. If you run, they come back much stronger and they come to you. Al Queda and the Pres. Bush both agree on that last sentence. Only the Democrats, the French, and Al Queda apologists dispute it because it doesn't fit with their cowardly and self loathing view of themselves.
I prefer being a realist.
What kind of proof do you have for the statement that “you can cut the heads of faster than they grow”? You couldn’t possibly have failed to notice that even your government admits that the threat of new terrorist acts have increased since the Iraq campaign? No way. And as stated before, the amount of people killed and wounded by terrorists has tripled since you started cutting heads off. It seems like the body runs pretty well without it, and shows no signs what so ever of slowing down. You can increase your airport security and that Star Wars anti-missile defence system, but it won’t stop them. Look at Israel for example, they’ve been battling Hamas for decades and are getting nowhere. Actually, the Zionist war-mogerers might be the suicide bombers best friend. Nothing motivates violence, like violence.
Regarding your “we kicked ass in the WW:s” argument, hey, that was nice and I completely respect the American war machine at that time. But don’t, for a second, think USA got involved before it was forced to act. And you know this is now about the WW:s, it’s about your direct involvement in and support of terrorist groups and governments throughout the century. For example; Under the guise of aid for "counter narcotics" operations, the U.S. Government is supplying weapons, training, troops and $1.3 billion to its apprentices in the Colombian military. The real purpose of all this aid is to support the government's massive political oppression of the Colombian people.
How about Guatemala? A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions and unimaginable cruelty, totalling more than 200,000 victims – indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century.
You messed up Afghanistan: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
Cambodia? Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility toward his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But the years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever. Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon this unhappy land. And to multiply the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
And of course, like all Republicans, you continue to blame democrats for 9/11. Well, who’s president was on the watch when it happened? At least Clinton was looking for OBL, but Bush didn’t even worry about him. And when he couldn’t catch him, he invaded Iraq to make people forget all about him.
Kendoiraq then proceed to claim that the American people support the War in Iraq? Well, have a look at the polls? Which president has the lowest approval ratings since Watergate? That’s right, it’s Georgie! The support for this war is decreasing by the day, as no change is in sight. There is no light at the horizon here, just more death, more violence. I will continue to argue that there is no way to stop terrorism this way. Europe isn’t helping you either, they think you’re insane over there!
Lastly, he mumbles about facing radical Islam or running. Well, it’s always appalling to see Republicans paint their words in black and white, but this just breaks new grounds in ignorance! How can you fail to see that your violence only brings more violence? How can you possibly be so blind? And don’t encourage yourself to believe that it will “get better in time” because every time you kill a generation of terrorists, you immediately spawn a new one.
That is realism. Now stop sticking your head in the sand, the world outside won’t stop spinning.
So Anonymous fancies himself as a pseudo historian. A few distortions here or there helped a lot in his lucid refutation but I must point out the subtle distortions of my statements and the truth contribute to faulty conclusions.
I will go in reverse order:
Killing terrorists only brings out new ones. I don't buy that as the real issue is radical islam. Islam has had many periods of radical/fanatical growth and only harsh responses from those they faced ever stopped them. They gather strength and take regions over forcing all around to convert, die, or suffer massive oppression. They don't allow free anything and tell you exactly what to think.
As to claiming I said the American public is for the war; I am sure I indicated the military and if not I am clarifying that right now. The difference is HUGE!
Cambodia is an interesting example since Jimmy Carter supported what happened and failed to comprehend the human tragedy that would follow. He felt we could work with Pol Pot and all he wanted was freedom for his "popular" socialist regime. The result was probably one of the greatest of all genocides perpetuated. Carter allowed it. Oh, and mentioning Bill Clinton somehow did more looking for OBL is a complete Democratic Lie! Further discussion on Bill's conduct is not worth my time as Bill own people dispute his concern. When the Director of the CIA can't reach the President (never given an appointment) or by phone there is a not so subtle message. He cut their funding and ignored them. Dick Morris and George Stephanopolis dispute Bill Clinton's claim to have worried about OBL except when Monicagate happened.
Before that he mentioned Central America - ah ha, we found uncle Hugo Chavez now claiming we oppressed the people again. And how did we do that? We fought those that wanted to murder and kill to establish Pol Pot regimes in Central America - unlike naive Jimmy boy! Oh, and somehow he mentions Afghanistan like the US had something to do with the bad things that happened in the 80s. I guess anonymous thinks broad brush strokes coupled with Michael Beschloss sounding wisdom (but really Noam's in practice) gives him license to make stuff up.
Israel is another interesting example as they were far better off before they negotiated with the terrorists than they are now. They got no peace and they have given about everything they have to give. What else can they do but Leave or die?
As to terrorism increasing it has been on the march ever since 1979's Iranian revolution. It has two main flavors but the establishment of a terrorist haven has spawned all of this. Radical Islam's attacks built up despite appeasement and 9-11 was completely planned long before Bill Clinton left office.
One other interesting refutation we need to look at root causes - MISDIRECTION - for the PERCEIVED slights of Islam that supposedly force young reasonble muslims into suicide bombers of children - why is it that the US contributed far more to the Tsunami victims of Muslim Asia than Arabs???? I say because Muslims embrace terror and care nothing for peace and humanitarianism. How do we negotiate with such persons? We can't but friendly regimes that embrace a level of free market and democratic teaches afford us peace. That is why we defend the regimes in the middle east OBL wants to overthrow.
I don't want to read another response from mr. Muslim apologist until he refutes terrorism as a reasonable weapon. Suicide bombing is insane and he needs to categorically denounce it. Democrats need to understand they can't straddle every fence and those - like this man - demonstrate the danger of listening to his excuses for violence. Oh, and I keep waiting for how the Democrats will suddenly solve these problems since their only answer is RUN and maybe things will get better.......what's there plan????
I am sure kenbo appreciates Muslims but he is obviously upset they don't reject terrorism.
Liberals don't understand the socialist tendencies of those they follow. Kenbo mentioned Chomsky and most people don't know the effect this man has on liberal thinkers in this country so here is a sample.
For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them.
o According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off."
o According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind the Iron Curtain included "a 'secret army' under US-Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s."
o According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S. support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of Heinrich Himmler's extermination squads."
o According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between torture and U.S. aid."
o According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)
o According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington's terrorist wars [i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any monstrous act, even the Nazi Holocaust." (7)
o In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there's a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They've all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes."(8)
What decent, caring human being would not want to see America and its war criminals brought to justice?
According to Chomsky, what America really wants is to steal from the poor and give to the rich. America's crusade against Communism was actually a crusade "to protect our doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor."(9) That is why we busied ourselves in launching a new crusade against terrorism after the end of the Cold War:
And the liberal left worships this man.
If Chomsky is wrong on those points, please refute them properly. Otherwise ignorant liberals will continue to "worship" this man. If you can't refute them however, then you might have some thinking to do, don't you?
//rhino
Chavez quotes Chomsky as well. Chomsky's only goal is the destruction of America. He's a socialist propaganda visionary and we need to be aware of his writings but don't believe them.
See "The Chomsky Hoax" or look up Alan Dershowitz for his point by point refutations of Chomsky.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
See "The Chomsky Hoax" or look up Alan Dershowitz for his point by point refutations of Chomsky.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
See "The Chomsky Hoax" or look up Alan Dershowitz for his point by point refutations of Chomsky.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
Post a Comment