Students: Teacher Gave Anti-Bush Vocab Quiz

[Prthd119]

Thank you Candy...The absolute best teacher I ever had...??

He told us to take a good look at our textbook, the first day in his class...

After 5 minutes..he said "Now..take it..put it in your locker for the rest of the year. I am here to prepare you for life; NOT the 12th grade."

He taught us to think for ourselves...and how to do a one sentence book report, once a week, containing all the basic constructions...and we gave our term paper orally..in the auditorium...In front of our class...GRADED by our class..he maintained our peers were harder on us than he ever could be......

We had one kid that went on to be a Country Musician..he did his on Bob Dylan and sang most of it...

Some on Poe, some on Eleanor Roosevelt....

He had a Chairperson and a Secretary every day....He taught us Roberts Rules of Order....and how to love the written word.....and once again..to think for ourselves.

He sat in a students desk at the front of the class and rotated 4 students up with him every week...2 on either side of him....

One book report I did? He said "Roberts, did you really read this book?" I answered "Yes Sir"...he said "You swear?" I answered "Yes Sir"...

Him: "Big Fat Zero. Nice girls don't swear"...

That man would be fired today....and I thank the Tiki Gods for him every day.....Mr. Irwin Wallace....Thank you....

[Sam]

Getting kids to debate a subject is an excellent learning experience. Perhaps they may even learn the skills necessary to argue a point concisely and coherently on a message board

Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like much "debate" happened. Seems more like someone ran to mommy and daddy because they didn't like what the teacher used as an example to teach.

Go back and REREAD it, maybe this time you will see where it says about no one knows who complained. Besides you know what they say opinions don't you, or at least you should by now.
So just what was the teacher trying to teach? His own political agenda and views?
Since you are now a parent... is the teacher/school system ALWAYS RIGHT in what they teach? and should you as a parent or any parent, have no say in what and how your child is taught???

As for my post being incoherent or whatever, again you should know what they say about opinions, and if you don't I am sure someone else willl let you know or I can let you know....

My post was in no way inferring to the coherency of your argument or anyone else's in this thread. I was a teacher at one time and my statement was that debating a subject is an excellent learning experience... teaches a student how to present his side and to listen to the other side being presented. These skills carry over into daily living... such as debating a subject on a message board.
What was he trying to teach? The article states that the teacher shares his views in order to prompt debate from his students.

Okies and a big THANK YOU to you, for clarifying what you meant.
Thank you for being a teacher too!!!
I will grant debating is a good way to teach, so are books, and practical/ on hands experience. Not everyone learns in the same way or on the same level. Some people learn better by reading/researching something, others by watching and doing, and others still just by listening, etc. It is not the same way for everyone.

I have my doubts about the teacher giving a politically one sided test for a debate, IF that test actually counts for a grade, and for him to try to deny he was not pushing his own political views.
I do see the teacher's political bias in this. If it was a real debate shouldn't the teacher have allowed equal time to an opposite view?
If the teacher wanted a debate on the President or politics I am quite sure he could have asked rather than what is apparently an attempt at intentional bashing of the President.

Something off topic, but I think would be good thing for schools to teach, and many disagree with the topic but it is about religion.
I do not mean cover one specific religion or to convert people into any particular faith or sect. I mean the HISTORY and basic/general beliefs of the various religions. The State would not be teaching or professing any particular religion. It would go a long way in teaching about many countries and their peoples. It would also teach understanding of why people do or don't do certain things or eat certain foods or don't eat other foods, for example. I am not in anyway saying one particular religion is better or any particular religion is worse should be taught. Just the the general understandings so people will have a better understanding and hopefully tolerance of people who believe/worship in different ways.
Ii might actually create more problems and open up all kinds of cans of worms, at first but ultimately...it might help our world be a better place.

[Tiki Bar]

I took "Philosophy of Religion" in college, and it did just what you said. But it was my choice to take it. I determined Buddhism is best for me!

I think there are too many hypersensitive parents that would object to it at the High School level though.

[Tiki Bar]

You are more than welcome to your RIGHT to supposedly your own ideas and views just as I or anyone else has a Right to such beliefs. Clearly your statement shows, that you seem to think you know best.

Such is the nature of opposing viewpoints. However, I wish some of us could better express them without throwing insults back and forth.

Just because I quoted him, does not mean this is directed solely at Sam... but to everyone. Please refrain from personal attacks - they don't enhance your argument one iota. (either does using words or phrases that you really have no clue what they mean, like I just did! )

[Sam]

I took "Philosophy of Religion" in college, and it did just what you said. But it was my choice to take it. I determined Buddhism is best for me!

I think there are too many hypersensitive parents that would object to it at the High School level though.

You know, I do believe you are right about the "hypersensitive parents" (and that they would be biggest opponents of such) but I think they should all take the courses on that,too or at least sit in and observe and listen.
I think it would go along ways in helping break down barriers and helping the majority of people get along better or at least more peacefully...Then again their is always that small faction out there that will always be there to undermine such and create problems....such as various religious fundalmentalists/extremeists...but at least they could/would be at least some what better understood by many more people.

[Tiki Bar]

Seek and you shall find!

i·o·ta
n.

1. The ninth letter of the Greek alphabet. See table at alphabet.
2. A very small amount; a bit: not an iota of truth to that tale.

[CandyLMT]

Seek and you shall find!

i·o·ta
n.

1. The ninth letter of the Greek alphabet. See table at alphabet.
2. A very small amount; a bit: not an iota of truth to that tale.

Thank you Tiki! A vocabulary lesson without the controversy, debate or drama

[CandyLMT]

Getting kids to debate a subject is an excellent learning experience. Perhaps they may even learn the skills necessary to argue a point concisely and coherently on a message board

Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like much "debate" happened. Seems more like someone ran to mommy and daddy because they didn't like what the teacher used as an example to teach.

Go back and REREAD it, maybe this time you will see where it says about no one knows who complained. Besides you know what they say opinions don't you, or at least you should by now.
So just what was the teacher trying to teach? His own political agenda and views?
Since you are now a parent... is the teacher/school system ALWAYS RIGHT in what they teach? and should you as a parent or any parent, have no say in what and how your child is taught???

As for my post being incoherent or whatever, again you should know what they say about opinions, and if you don't I am sure someone else willl let you know or I can let you know....

My post was in no way inferring to the coherency of your argument or anyone else's in this thread. I was a teacher at one time and my statement was that debating a subject is an excellent learning experience... teaches a student how to present his side and to listen to the other side being presented. These skills carry over into daily living... such as debating a subject on a message board.
What was he trying to teach? The article states that the teacher shares his views in order to prompt debate from his students.

Okies and a big THANK YOU to you, for clarifying what you meant.
Thank you for being a teacher too!!!
I will grant debating is a good way to teach, so are books, and practical/ on hands experience. Not everyone learns in the same way or on the same level. Some people learn better by reading/researching something, others by watching and doing, and others still just by listening, etc. It is not the same way for everyone.

I have my doubts about the teacher giving a politically one sided test for a debate, IF that test actually counts for a grade, and for him to try to deny he was not pushing his own political views.
I do see the teacher's political bias in this. If it was a real debate shouldn't the teacher have allowed equal time to an opposite view?
If the teacher wanted a debate on the President or politics I am quite sure he could have asked rather than what is apparently an attempt at intentional bashing of the President.

Mr Chenkin is an English AND social studies teacher so a vocabulary quiz of this nature isn't as unorthodox as it might seem. If Mr Chenkin was indeed trying to prompt debate by his statements and there was no debate from the students, then the lesson was lost.
Good, bad or indifferent, love 'em or hate 'em, presidents are remembered for their faux pas while in office... Ford is remembered as being a klutz, Bush Sr for spewing on the Japanese Prime Minister, Clinton for his extramarital affairs and George W for his "Bushisms" and for not being an eloquent speaker. Whether you agree or not with the statement posed in the vocabulary quiz, coherent (logically consistant) is the choice that works rather than eschewed (to shun, as something unworthy or injurious)
Pairing George Bush and coherent would definitely stick in the student's mind better than a benign statement.
Mr Chenkin did say he would change his teaching methods and "I'll put in both sides" which sounds like a statement coming from a teacher who cares about his students education rather than someone just trying to force their own political views.

[Sam]

Getting kids to debate a subject is an excellent learning experience. Perhaps they may even learn the skills necessary to argue a point concisely and coherently on a message board

Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like much "debate" happened. Seems more like someone ran to mommy and daddy because they didn't like what the teacher used as an example to teach.

Go back and REREAD it, maybe this time you will see where it says about no one knows who complained. Besides you know what they say opinions don't you, or at least you should by now.
So just what was the teacher trying to teach? His own political agenda and views?
Since you are now a parent... is the teacher/school system ALWAYS RIGHT in what they teach? and should you as a parent or any parent, have no say in what and how your child is taught???

As for my post being incoherent or whatever, again you should know what they say about opinions, and if you don't I am sure someone else willl let you know or I can let you know....

My post was in no way inferring to the coherency of your argument or anyone else's in this thread. I was a teacher at one time and my statement was that debating a subject is an excellent learning experience... teaches a student how to present his side and to listen to the other side being presented. These skills carry over into daily living... such as debating a subject on a message board.
What was he trying to teach? The article states that the teacher shares his views in order to prompt debate from his students.

Okies and a big THANK YOU to you, for clarifying what you meant.
Thank you for being a teacher too!!!
I will grant debating is a good way to teach, so are books, and practical/ on hands experience. Not everyone learns in the same way or on the same level. Some people learn better by reading/researching something, others by watching and doing, and others still just by listening, etc. It is not the same way for everyone.

I have my doubts about the teacher giving a politically one sided test for a debate, IF that test actually counts for a grade, and for him to try to deny he was not pushing his own political views.
I do see the teacher's political bias in this. If it was a real debate shouldn't the teacher have allowed equal time to an opposite view?
If the teacher wanted a debate on the President or politics I am quite sure he could have asked rather than what is apparently an attempt at intentional bashing of the President.

Mr Chenkin is an English AND social studies teacher so a vocabulary quiz of this nature isn't as unorthodox as it might seem. If Mr Chenkin was indeed trying to prompt debate by his statements and there was no debate from the students, then the lesson was lost.
Good, bad or indifferent, love 'em or hate 'em, presidents are remembered for their faux pas while in office... Ford is remembered as being a klutz, Bush Sr for spewing on the Japanese Prime Minister, Clinton for his extramarital affairs and George W for his "Bushisms" and for not being an eloquent speaker. Whether you agree or not with the statement posed in the vocabulary quiz, coherent (logically consistant) is the choice that works rather than eschewed (to shun, as something unworthy or injurious)
Pairing George Bush and coherent would definitely stick in the student's mind better than a benign statement.
Mr Chenkin did say he would change his teaching methods and "I'll put in both sides" which sounds like a statement coming from a teacher who cares about his students education rather than someone just trying to force their own political views.

Among those, actually I remember President Bush ( the father) as in "Read My Lips! NO new taxes!" then we got hit with the "User Fees" on boats////among other things.
About the teacher....
It may be he was not thinking.
It may be that he he has been doing it and finally got caught at it.
It may be none of the above and something else.
HOWEVER considering it is apparently popular among some to bash President Bush. What he did intentionally or not,could be easily construed as bashing since he apparently did not offer equal time to differing/opposing views, I do not consider it a debate.
Now it has created a debate, that cannot be denied.

He could have easily used any other topic but he particulary chose politics and our current President. I do think he was more about caring for his own
political views than his students, if he had it would have been equal time without anyone being able to object.

I have known and worked quite a few people that were not eloquent speakers and would gladly work for them again rather than someone that was simply an eloquent speaker and did not care about the people around them.
Our lives depended on information and even though the individual(s) may not have been the most eloquent of speakers they had a way of reading through BS and giving us and letting us know what we needed to know.
I really have no problem with the way President Bush says things. The man is far from stupid (I am not saying or inferring that you insuated or said he was). He has graduated from two of the finest and highly reputable schools in the Nation....Maybe he is not a great speaker to some or a lot of people, but I would consider him to be better than a person that lies to me to my face and expects me to believe them.

Care to tell me no one else has said dumb things throughout their lives? He may be our President but he is still a man and only human.

[captainjoe]

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2005

[CaptainP]

(actually, I didn't read a single word in this thread....just saw the topic and the participants. It's page 3...I assume there has been name-calling by now.)

[LIPH]

Disclaimer: I realize this is the Off Topic Forum and I know what the term "Off Topic" means.

Stepping up on my soapbox

After reading all 3 pages of this thread I'm reminded why I stopped posting at COBO earlier this year and why, in my oinion, that board was dying a slow and painful death before it got hacked so badly a couple of months ago. It also reminds me why I'm glad phjim never felt the need to add a political area to BN.

I'm sure there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of political message boards on the internet. If I wanted to discuss politics I could go to one, or 100, or 1,000, of them. I don't come to BN to talk about politics. I come here to "see" my friends, many of whom I've only "met" here, talk about music, (Jimmy Buffett's as well as any number of other performers), have fun and make a fool of myself (something I seem to have become very good at over the years). Yes, I'm free not to read these threads. Yes, I don't have to respond to any of them. No, I won't say what's really on my mind because some people would get p*** off and I'd probably wind up getting banned. But we don't need this nonsense here. In my not so humble opinion, that isn't what BN is all about.

Stepping down from my soapbox

Carry on.

[CaptainP]

I'm reminded why I stopped posting at COBO earlier this year and why, in my oinion, that board was dying a slow and painful death before it got hacked so badly a couple of months ago.

You have an onion???

[a1aara]

My state just got the results of some state mandated tests that the students took in the fall. The results were not great on an overall average for the school districts or the state. I'm thinking maybe the schools should stop preaching and giving political discussions. Take religion and politics out and get back to the basics. The three "R's". Looking at the scores It looks to me like a lot of kids still can't read.

[a1aara]

Maybe he is not a great speaker to some or a lot of people, but I would consider him to be better than a person that lies to me to my face and expects me to believe them.


Didn't he lie about WMD's to the Nation in a State of the Union speech? Hasn't he continued to lie about the war in Iraq? Didn't he say he would fire anyone in his administartion that had anything to do with commiting treason against our country? Doesn't Karl Rove continue to have a job? I'm not exactly sure what you consider a lie but these are just 3 that came to mind. Politics aside. A lie is a lie. Bush Jr lied. Clintod lied. Bush Sr. lied. Regan lied. Nixon lied. (I left out Ford and Carter because I can't think of what they probably lied about).

[Sam]

Maybe he is not a great speaker to some or a lot of people, but I would consider him to be better than a person that lies to me to my face and expects me to believe them.


Didn't he lie about WMD's to the Nation in a State of the Union speech? Hasn't he continued to lie about the war in Iraq? Didn't he say he would fire anyone in his administartion that had anything to do with commiting treason against our country? Doesn't Karl Rove continue to have a job? I'm not exactly sure what you consider a lie but these are just 3 that came to mind. Politics aside. A lie is a lie. Bush Jr lied. Clintod lied. Bush Sr. lied. Regan lied. Nixon lied. (I left out Ford and Carter because I can't think of what they probably lied about).

BTW, What s is your and the left's fixation and obsession with Karl Rove??
What is your and the Left's problem with Truth? instead of repeating false accusations and lies over and over and over.

Anyway YOU TELL ME WHO lied or who is repeating lies.....Let me know when you decide to call all of these other people liars... Before you try to condemn this as more lies, I would highly suggest you research the quotes and to when they were said. All of the quotes and information below are available for anyone that wants to research them or challenbe them.

Perhaps your hatred/dislike of President Bush, maynot change, but at least some of your false accusations and lies that have been spread and continue to spread byt the left wingers,President Bush bashers, and the MSM, and that you and others appaently believe, like the MSM wants you to do, will be shown for what they are.
As for other Presidents lying they are irrevelent.

As far as the War on Terrorism...I am curious to know just how would you fight it? Honestly,... how would you fight it and where?

Since you asked I will post the article below to answer at least one or two of your questions about lying about WMDs.....Let us see just who is lying.
*************************************************************

http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/e ... asp?id=340

Patriot Action Alert: The TRUTH about Iraq's WMD
Mark Alexander
From Patriot No. 05-45b; Published 11 November 2005 | |

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This Patriot Action Alert concerns the TRUTH about Iraq's WMD. All of the quotes cited below can be found through official and media archives. To start, search Google for "Clinton Iraq 1998" and check the sources. Please forward this message to anyone on your e-mail list who is interested in the truth!)

On the heels of the "White House -- CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl. Their charges have no substance, and are completely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections.

Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached.

Here are their accusations:

"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy

"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid

"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.

Naturally, the Democrat's media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

Here is what Democrats were saying before 9/11:

Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Bill Clinton on ODF: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton two years before 9/11 announcing Operation Desert Fox -- if Iraq did not have, or was not developing WMD, then what was Clinton attacking? Oh, that's right, "baby formula" and "aspirin" factories.)

Democrat Leaders under Bill Clinton:

In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.

Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Democrat leaders after 9/11:

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Jay Rockefeller: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. We have always underestimated the progress Saddam has been able to make in the development of WMD."

Joe Biden: "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Evan Bayh: "I support the President. The lesson we learned since 9/11 is that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly with WMD."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force if necessary to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq, "Poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." These assessments were echoed by foreign intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and the year 2000.

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. There is substantial evidence that Saddam exported most of his WMD capability to Iran and Syria before OIF -- which may, eventually, find its way into a U.S. urban center, should U.S. political, and consequently, military resolve wither.

This week, amid the rancor about who "lied," Senator Joseph Lieberman, had this to say about our mission in Iraq: "I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there."

So, ask Ted, Dick and Harry, what is their real agenda?

One might fairly conclude that they are willing to reduce U.S. national security to political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of "lying." Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office -- to defend our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their most recent antics -- and all of America should look upon these disgraceful Demo-gogues, and anyone who supports this dangerous folly, as traitorous louts.

On 11 November, President Bush noted: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander Publisher, The Patriot

(Circulation of this Alert is sponsored by The Federalist Patriot, the most widely read conservative e-journal in America. If you have not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving this highly acclaimed digest of news, policy and opinion, link to http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/alert0503.asp for your FREE e-mail subscription. (If you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: and you will be subscribed automatically.)

Founder's Quote: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill

[ph4ever]

My state just got the results of some state mandated tests that the students took in the fall. The results were not great on an overall average for the school districts or the state. I'm thinking maybe the schools should stop preaching and giving political discussions. Take religion and politics out and get back to the basics. The three "R's". Looking at the scores It looks to me like a lot of kids still can't read.

those state mandaed tests are total bs as far "teaching" goes. Coming from a state where the tests have been in effect for several years now I can tell you that the same thing happened in my state. And eventually the teachers discovered that they couldn't teach anything but what would be on the test. I have had several teachers, all in different age levels, tell me they are so pressured by their districts to make sure the students pass the test that's all they do now - teach the test. IMHO that's not education

[RinglingRingling]

I'm reminded why I stopped posting at COBO earlier this year and why, in my oinion, that board was dying a slow and painful death before it got hacked so badly a couple of months ago.

You have an onion???

and it's as vidalia as any other...

[ph4ever]

The Federalist Patriot. Now that's really a non-partisian website for you there. It's not as if they have an adgenda and will report biased information there.

[captainjoe]

The Federalist Patriot. Now that's really a non-partisian website for you there. It's not as if they have an adgenda and will report biased information there.

Will you please stop making valid points!