Grant's Eye on the World
Massive world recession to occur if Iraq attacked: Economist; Sept 12, 2002; Copyright 2002 XINHUA NEWS AGENCYThe official state press of China speaks. Guess we should listen. They wouldn't lie to us now would they?
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), which operates under the Economist magazine, predicted that the world would suffer a massive recession if Iraq were attacked and Middle East oil producers protested by pushing up the oil price.Right. Yep, this is a problem. Anyone want to know what happened to the price of oil during the Gulf War? Anyone out there remember? It was below $10 per barrel. The price hit decade lows (snicker, snicker). And the Chinese news agency is calling for massive increases. Right.
Robin Bew, the chief economist of the EIU, told Xinhua in a written commentary Thursday, "Our forecasts assume that the United States does attack Iraq, and that the Middle East oil producers oppose the US action and team up to cut oil production, and thereby, pushing the oil price to, say, 70 US dollars a barrel or more, that would deliver a massive supply-side shock to the global economy and probably trigger a massive recession, similar to the oil shocks in the 1970s," Bew said.Well based on that economic model then yeah. This is theoretical jibberish by some Chicom economist who's been practicing Marxist economic theory. See any other reason not to believe this? I'd rather draw upon fact. I'll put my money on a massive decrease in prices. Why? Because OPEC is after one thing and one thing alone - the US dollar. Sorry Charlie Chin, you better go back to Moo Goo Gai Pan. It's something you might know something about.
Bush Wins Key Test Vote in Homeland Security Department Debate; Foxnews.com/AP; Sep 12, 2002Most, if not all, liberals will say there is no such thing as media bias. Anyone with less than half a brain can figure out there is, if they want to admit it.
President Bush won an important homeland security test vote Thursday when the Senate signaled its unwillingness to set up a powerful new anti-terrorism office that the White House opposes.This is the agency that W wanted to stop. It was proposed in the Democrats Security Bill.
By a 55-41 vote, the Senate effectively endorsed Bush's position against the office, which would be subject to Senate confirmation and have broad budgetary powers.Ok now, Bush and the Republicans effectively killed this bill sponsored and pushed by the Democrats.
Although a final vote was put off on an amendment removing the office entirely from the bill, 48 Republicans joined six Democrats and independent, Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, in siding with the president on the preliminary vote.See it? I mean I have a hard time following this. How is it that 48 Republicans joined 6 Democrats to defeat this stupid intrusive bill? It was the Democrats pushing this bad piece of legislation so how could such a large majority of Republicans join such a small minority? Only in the liberal world do huge majorities join tiny minorities. After all, it's only visionary liberal Democrats who are on the right side of everything (hurl).
Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace; Newsweak (sic); Sept 6, 2002Why Newsweek even bothered to quote this tyrant is beyond me, but they are associated with MSNBC so that says just about everything.
Nelson Mandela, 84, may be the world's most respected statesman. Sentenced to life in prison on desolate Robben Island in 1964 for advocating armed resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress leader emerged in 1990 to lead his country in a transition to non-racial elections.There's the build up to this treacherous commie and his murderous wife. Single-handedly he destroyed the country of South Africa's economic stability. And he gets billing like that?
If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate.And why wouldn't an avowed Communist call upon a like agency like the UN? Keep in mind, it was Nelson Mandela whom Billie-bob spoke to and quoted on his actions in Kosovo. See the connection?
The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979.Another famous dictator loving pro-socialist person was involved in this one. Things were quite stable and peaceful while the Shah was in power. What happened? Jimmy, the pro-commie, Carter supported the Ayatollah and they ran the Shah out. Shortly thereafter, they went crazy and stormed the American embassy and held the embassy staff prisoners for 444 days. Now that's peaceful stuff.
Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white.Gosh, sounds like Mendulla there consulted with Johnny Cochran of OJ fame. Pulling the race card is always a way to garner sympathy. Nellie there doesn't mention that the butcher of Baghdad there will use them and has so stated he will rid the world of the evil empire along with their evil friend Israel.
There is one compromise and one only, and that is the United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United Nations and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we must do something about it, we would all support it.Yeah right. It was the butcher who kicked out UN inspectors. It was the UN who's been talking to this guy for 10 years to no avail. Think you ought to go back where you came from Nellie, but remember one thing. It was America who got you released from prison. Guess we do make mistakes.
CONTROVERSY AFTER PEOPLE MAG PICTURES CHELSEA CLINTON IN 'AROUSED' STATE; Sep 12, 2002; Drudge ReportLike father like daughter. What would you expect, anyway?
Editors at TIMEWARNER's PEOPLE magazine found themselves in controversy on Thursday -- after the weekly published a photograph showing former first daughter Chelsea Clinton in an apparent "aroused" state.The dilemma, liberal vs liberal. I love these.
Clinton is shown "erect" as she is embraced by her companion Ian Klaus at last week's US OPEN tennis tournament; her face: showing "bedroom pleasures."What's with this family? I mean her dad buys half a dozen bikinis in Brazil and when questioned he said they were for his daughter. The one McCain called the ugly offspring of Janet Reno and Madeleine Albright.
But the controversial shot of Clinton pulled mixed reviews -- even from within the magazine! "I work here, I found it in very poor taste," a PEOPLE staffer told the DRUDGE REPORT from New York. "Why don't we just run a photograph of his hands down her pants?"So what's the problem here? They called 911 when one of W's daughters asked for a beer in a restaurant. Look at this story on a recent commentary of mine at how the media tried to stir up something that wasn't there on W's daughters Barbara and Jenna. Unfair Treatment Through innuendo they did their best to paint a scandalous picture. Guess it depends on who is laying off who. Guess this media shy kid isn't on the Riveria with Madonna or talking about her whereabouts on 9/11 that her and Broom Hillary had different accounts of on the same event. Oh well, the family is known for being 'erect'. Look at the bright side, they could have had more kids (rolling eyes).