« Taunting Of Injured Soldiers Update | Main | News flash: Massachusetts kids can't do simple math »

Clinton Cabinet Member Called For Hussein Assassination

Pat Robertson (who is an absolute lunatic) has been getting a lot of heat lately for this comment:

"If Chavez expects us to assassinate him, we should."

Yet during the Clinton era senior administration adviser George Stephanopoulos called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein while writing an op/ed piece for Newsweek.

Where was the clucking-of-tongues in the media then? Where was the outrage from the political left when it was one of their guys calling for assassination?

It didn't exist. Why? Because there is a double standard in the media when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. Kind of like how the New York Times was against the filibuster...until Democrats wanted to use it.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Cabinet Member Called For Hussein Assassination:

» UNCoRRELATED linked with Nuttiness is in the eye of the beholder

» it comes in pints? linked with Interesting quote

» Sister Toldjah linked with Media hypocrisy watch

» The View From The Nest linked with Outrage For Mine But Not For Thine

» Baseball Crank linked with WAR/RELIGION: It's Just Pat

» Mike's Noise linked with The "ABC's" of Assassination

Comments (39)

The uproar comes not necess... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

The uproar comes not necessarily from the request, it comes from the request of THE LEADER OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT. "Who would Jesus Whack?"

Although I agree that there... (Below threshold)

Although I agree that there is some hypocrisy going on here, the differences between Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez also need to be taken into consideration.

I think the real hypocrisy comes from some Democrats, liberals, and the media in that they would have opposed such actions by the Bush administration, even suggestion by the Bush administration - assassinating Saddam.

I think there was a much more moral case for assassinating Saddam than Chavez. In fact, the Bush administration was looking over such scenarios as Stephanopoulos was talking about after 9/11.

Yet as I said, I really doubt the media would have treated such a statement on Saddam by the Bush administration in the same way.

Bottom line: Saddam and Chavez are not the same so the comparison is not completely effective.

Turns out George wasn't the... (Below threshold)

Turns out George wasn't the only one...a quick search turned up Sam Donaldson, Newsweek, Bill Kristol, Cokie Roberts...quite a crew calling for Saddam's head.

You can see the quotes at my site (click my name up there), I don't mean for this to be a plug, you can track it back then to the source I got the list from, I'm just a pass through on this, but it was pretty interesting.

Steph didn't try to deny it... (Below threshold)
Just John:

Steph didn't try to deny it two days later.

Oh, I see, yeah (insert for... (Below threshold)

Oh, I see, yeah (insert forehead slap), everyone jumped down his throat only after he tried to change his story, yeah, that's it...sure.

I think the difference is t... (Below threshold)
Oh, FTLOG:

I think the difference is that Pat Robertson claims to be a man of God. It's not Democrat vs. Republican. It's Christian vs. "Christian".

If Rush Limbaugh had said t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If Rush Limbaugh had said this, it never would have made news (outside of Media Matters, that is). The reason it did is because Robertson is a minister, owner of a television station, founder and chancellor of a university, and has a good deal of political influence.

The other difference between Saddam and Chavez is that we had already been to war with Saddam when people recommended his assasination, he had killed many thousands of people, and he tried to assassinate our president! If anyone can point to anything similar Chavez has done, please do.

Not only that, but Stephanapolous was offering it as a suggestion of how to handle the dangerous dictator without invading or bombing the hell out of the country (Plan B, apparently). As I recall the war in Iraq started with a unsuccessful mission to kill Saddam on the first day (on to Plan B!).

What did Chavez do again? Oh, right, oil prices.

You're totally missing the ... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

You're totally missing the point.

Robertson is a Christian who seeks to coercively impose his narrow belief-system on the multi-cultural collective. He therefore deserves to be derided, criticized, scorned and held up to public ridicule and rebuke.

Stephanopoulos, on the other hand, is a Progressive and therefore entitled to say and do as he pleases without the need to explain or provide support for his pronouncements, or otherwise be held accountable for them.

See the difference? No? Idiots.

Non Christians often opine ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Non Christians often opine about who and what they expect Christians to be and believe in, and yet, about Christianity otherwise, from a Christian experience: God has never commanded, instructed us to not defend ourselves, to not challenge, oppose nor even when necessary strike down evil, that which is potently harmful.

But, as to the non Christian opining about who Christians are supposed to be to non Christians, I'd get into this issue farther but then I'd have to discuss theology and that'd send some into a tailspin.

"Turn the other cheek" as Christ tells us to do does not mean to lie down and turn to jello. It means to confront evil, harms, and to do so with authority.

Pat Robertson remains just as entitled to voice his opinions as anyone -- but I do find his statement a bit unchaste as to how he presented the comments, a tad too blunt and cursory, given his public profile. After reading more since yesterday about this, and especially reading his actual comments and not what is being alleged he said, I don't find his comments all that alarming. But I do think he should not have said quite so publicly what he did without, at least, a greater explanation.

For the record, he never said "assassinate Chavez," but that Chavez should be "taken out." As in, demoted, removed from power. Killed, perhaps, yes, but that's for Intelligence and Defense to interpret and/or apply. I think the going understanding about Chavez is that he is a person who intends harm upon democracy and isn't functioning with good intentions and a bad community of influences and helpers (his concept of government relies upon drug cartel and militia relationships, as with Castro and all that implies).

Perhaps people just aren't able to accept Robertson that bluntly, dunno, but he has expressed what many are already aware of. Just a tad too publicly for some people's comfort.

BTW this:Yet du... (Below threshold)
mantis:

BTW this:

Yet during the Clinton era senior administration adviser George Stephanopoulos called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein

should be "during the Clinton era former senior administrator advisor turned TV host/author called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein"

Stephanapoulos left the White House in January 1997. He wrote the Newsweek piece in December 1997.

mantis, you are entirely na... (Below threshold)
-S-:

mantis, you are entirely naive about Chavez. It's not about "oil prices" -- an element in the mix of commerce and politics, but hardly the issue here.

Go read about Chavez the person and who he commisserates with.

I am no supporter of Pat Ro... (Below threshold)
john:

I am no supporter of Pat Robertson. He has been hurting the positive message of Christianity and conservatism for a long time. However, the issue here is not what Pat Robertson says or Clinton said. The issue is how do we deal with renegade thugs who hold power like so.

He is not interested in the welfare of his people, promoting world peace or the prosperity of Venezuela. If left alone he will steal the oil profits from his people and buy weapons to hurt them and/or us.

No one wants to interfere in the sovereignty of Venezuela but sovereignty and democracy are not a cure for cancer or world peace. Hitler was popular. Saddam was popular. They still had to go...at great pain to their people.

We have democracy in the US but we still have a police force to make sure everyone plays nice. For more than two centuries through the Monroe Doctrine we have laid it out there for everyone else in this part of the world that we expect everyone to play nice. Chavez knew that going in so whatever happens to him is his own responsibility.

We don't need an embargo or sanctions like we used in Iraq and Cuba. Too many innocent people will suffer. Chavez is the problem and he should go.

I favor using the Peace Corp rather than the Marine Corp to do it but it needs to get done sooner than later.

Let's stop worrying about Pat Robertson and Bill Clinton.

For the record, he never... (Below threshold)
mantis:

For the record, he never said "assassinate Chavez,"

You still pushing that crap, Suzy? Once again, for the record, from the article you linked to in the other thread.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

You can also watch the video if you're still confused, it's not hard to find.

Just because Robertson is a... (Below threshold)

Just because Robertson is a 'man of God'? I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately that's not borne out by the coverage which harps on how he's a 'conservative' and the 'influence' they seem to think he has (yeah, he makes most conservatives avoid him, so indeed he has influence). For example, the NYT: "Pat Robertson, the conservative Christian broadcaster" For rebuttals they go to other conservative groups...not churches. ABC seemed to call out the 'Christian' angle. CBS' description? "Robertson is not just any private citizen. He's a former Republican presidential candidate with a large evangelical following." NBC also went for the religious angle. They also went on to basically torch him for everything he's ever done (and it's quite a lot) that's questionable, barely maintaining any focus on Chavez.

So, basically, I'm just trying to say I disagree, I think they're torching him because he's a conservative, not because he's supposed to be religious. My opinion.

I'm going to lose some people here but I'll say it anyway: This is reminding me of the Michael Jackson trial. Jackson goes to court and gets off, even though the jury thinks he's molested others they don't think so in this case. Some people think he should have been punished this time, guilty or not, because of what he did in the past. Robertson has said some really dumb things before, frankly I don't think this rates with some of the others (look beyond the 'oil' with Chavez to see what he's up to...we shouldn't be ignoring him) but people want to nail him over this while the nailing is good, regardless of whether what he's saying now warrants it...just look at how they keep bringing up the past instead of focusing solely on this.

[Stephanapoulos left the Wh... (Below threshold)

[Stephanapoulos left the White House in January 1997. He wrote the Newsweek piece in December 1997.]

Mantis, you're pushing some crap, too. Here's what George wrote:

"IN THE MIDDLE OF A CRISIS WITH IRAQ DURING PRESIDENT Clinton's first term, I wondered aloud in an Oval Office meeting about the prospects of killing Saddam Hussein." Unless this was during some oval office crisis meeting he was invited to after he quit.

So from his own mouth (fingers) he did bring it up while working there, in the oval office, reportedly during 'a crisis'. Just because he wrote the piece later doesn't mean he wasn't talking about his time at the White House.

Just because he wrote th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Just because he wrote the piece later doesn't mean he wasn't talking about his time at the White House.

You're absolutely right, I missed that part. My mistake.

Not to defend Georgie, but ... (Below threshold)

Not to defend Georgie, but there's a bit of a difference between "wondering aloud" in a meeting ("covering all the angles) and saying it on live television.

Opining that we should take... (Below threshold)

Opining that we should take out the leader of another nation is one thing, why hasn't the left whined about JFK attempting it several times? Pat Robertson is an idiot but Kennedy was guilty of the attempted murder of Castro.

[Not to defend Georgie, but... (Below threshold)

[Not to defend Georgie, but there's a bit of a difference between "wondering aloud" in a meeting ("covering all the angles) and saying it on live television. ]

Uhh...huh? What are you talking about? This whole thing was about the piece he wrote in Newsweek...very similar to saying it on live television. C'mon, catch up. He was reporting to the world at large that he had brought it up in the White House earlier. Maybe if Pat had brought it up in private earlier someone would have told him that he shouldn't go saying that stuff on TV (even though it didn't seem to hurt liberals saying it about Saddam a while back).

[Opining that we should tak... (Below threshold)

[Opining that we should take out the leader of another nation is one thing, why hasn't the left whined about JFK attempting it several times? Pat Robertson is an idiot but Kennedy was guilty of the attempted murder of Castro.]

Talk about a toughie...trying to decide whether to support JFK or Castro...I wonder how many editors exploded trying to make this call.

I would really like to stop... (Below threshold)

I would really like to stop hearing people (mostly non-Christians, btw) stating that Pat Robertson is "the Christian leader". Just because the man is on the 700 Club does not make him MY leader. God is my leader.

And, honestly, Robertson might have a point. Yes, I said it. I've been thinking it since the story first broke. My only concern is that the US makes sure it has evidence to support removing Chavez from power. If the man hasn't done anything to warrant his removal, then leave him alone until he does. That doesn't mean he has to be killed, either.

*waits for the rocks to come flying*

Bullwinkle-Taking Ca... (Below threshold)
john:

Bullwinkle-
Taking Castro's life would not have been murder anymore than performing executions under the death penalty. We don't have a World Court to adjudicate such things so JFK acted under with authority to protect us from the threat imposed by Castro. I am in favor of nipping Chavez in the bud. Then lets go into Venezuela and help the people get a fair share of the prosperity we should all enjoy in this region of the world. We should use a little stick and then a lot of carrot down there.

SilverBubble-
You are right we should make sure that Chavez has not done anything and more importantly that he won't do anything to cause problems for us or his people. His sabre rattling and taunting are not a good sign. We didn't let the South get away with it and we shouldn't let Chavez get away with it. I don't want to see us forsake the people of Venezuela to prove a point about democracy and sovereignty. After all the South voted to opt out of the USA and we said no. Chavez should go soon or demonstrate the error of his ways.

The Venezuela people have the right to self determination so long as they are good world citizens and in this case it means by our standards.

We should help them with comprehensive foreign aid and a strong trade policy after Chavez is gone.

Unlike some, mantis, I am a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Unlike some, mantis, I am able to revise and modify my opinion with changing information over time. As in, information available about Robertson and what he said has changed over a few days and especially since yesterday -- while media (and you, among others) continue to stick with the first and initial false "quotes" and misrepresentations.

Being able to change with conditions is a good indication, not a bad one, of intelligence and maturity. Interesting you don't perceive that.

I'll begin considering your one note harping when you start to engage in real discussion and reposition from the potty googoogahgah to something akin to language.

How's your reading about Ch... (Below threshold)
-S-:

How's your reading about Chavez's character and relationships going, by the way, mantis?

That link I shared yesterda... (Below threshold)
-S-:

That link I shared yesterday is still valuable reading today, however, so I don't see any point, mantis. Not like I'm today suggesting it's deplorable or something.

Did you actually read it, by the way?

It points out a very significant thing, yesterday it did and still does today, and that is that Robertson was misquoted by the media, and continues to be. Unfortunately, THEY (and some here) are unable to reckon with accurate information and are still running off into netherlands, unable to correct the course.

Robertson said that Chavez "needs to be taken out." The media continues to "report" that "Robertson calls for Chavez to be assassinated".

You tell me which is hyperbole and defamatory. What I do know is that the difficulties Chavez poses to the world is not "about oil" as you earlier lamely alleged, but about Chavez as a corrupt and unpredictable person, responsible for horrible acts similar to those by Saddam Hussein, certainly suggestive of a reenactment of Hussein's worst, and a close political relationship with militias and drug cartels, and, worse, Castro.

You need to read more about this rather than try to go for personalizing and barbs. Reducing Chavez to being of issue "about the oil" as you attempt is mundane.

As in, information avail... (Below threshold)
mantis:

As in, information available about Robertson and what he said has changed over a few days and especially since yesterday while media (and you, among others) continue to stick with the first and initial false "quotes" and misrepresentations.

He said it on TV! Go watch the tape and tell me that the "information available" has changed the words that came out of his mouth, which you continue to deny happened.

I'll begin considering your one note harping when you start to engage in real discussion and reposition from the potty googoogahgah to something akin to language.

Huh?

As far as my reading about Chavez goes, I'll bet I've read a good deal more than you, because I read what both sides are saying. Not only that, but I've actually been to Venezuela. Have you?

mantis: you wrote, this th... (Below threshold)
-S-:

mantis: you wrote, this thread, in minimizing defense about Chavez that "it" (criticism, notice, whatever) was "about the oil" and suggested otherwise that there was no otherwise noteworthy problem or issue about Chavez.

Such that any idea or notion so extreme as to inspire anyone to criticize Chavez -- I guess in your view if and among conservatives who might criticize Chavez -- was "about the oil" (thus, it's an aberration or excess by conservatives that Chavez would be on the radar of problems).

Please go read the thread. Because, as I wrote then and continue to write, you display either naivete about who Chavez is in morality, politics and character OR you are an apologist for the ugliness Chavez represents and proliferates.

Otherwise, you're not only misinformed, you are malformed about who Chavez is and thus, you really need to read about who he is and what his relationships are and with whom before you attempt any further barbs about me or anyone else about these remarks by Robertson.

What I think it is is that you are just punky about my comments because you're targeting others here. Not like that's a surprise, not like I can't and don't scroll, but that writing to me that "(I) am pushing...crap" is, well, it is you being even more stupid than usual.

It's none of your business where I go and have been, by the way. Not that you possess maturity or kindness adequate to recognize and honor the personal boundaries of others.

You having "actually been to Venezuela..."

Actually? You've ACTUALLY been there? You mean, as in really? Really?

What have you read about Chavez?

And, thus, Chavez is a reco... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, thus, Chavez is a recognized political -- and probably military -- problem for the U.S.

Robertson was remarking about that, with some excess, granted, but hardly as a representative of Christians, Christianity or even conservatives.

I don't see why this is such a big deal to liberals, I really don't, except that it almost certainly provides them (Robertson's comments) with an opportunity to go more insane about the Christianity that they have no understanding about. Much like Cindy Sheehan.

mantis-What is you o... (Below threshold)
john:

mantis-
What is you opinion of Chavez as a "leader" in Venezuela? I am generally a liberal and forgiving person but I find Chavez to come across as a mixed caricature of the banana republic dictator and a cold war puppet of the Soviets. I don't see what he is trying to do for his people? It doesn't make all of our policies correct but he seems like a bad guy that needs to go. We should provide aid and trade if we want him to go. If he doesn't sing a different song then we should make him go. I don't think he needs to sing the Star Spangled Banner but the sabre rattling doesn't sound good either.

Th reason there is no uproa... (Below threshold)

Th reason there is no uproar is because we were technically still "at-war" with Iraq and did have a policy for regime change! Seems cut and dry to me.

This is the problem today, no matter, who says something there will always be those that instead of saying "yeah you're right that was wrong" will just plug their ears and turn on the "spin" cycle.

Anybody that would defend Pat is crazier than Pat!

-S-, you never fail to amaz... (Below threshold)
Chris:

-S-, you never fail to amaze me. You seem to be under the impression that as long as you keep saying something, it will somehow become true. Pat Robertson said, on tape, "if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." And you keep claiming he didn't say it, that he's being misquoted. EVEN ROBERTSON NOW ADMITS HE SAID IT! Each time this gets brought up to you, you ignore it and start harping on something else a poster said. So I won't say anything else in this post to distract you. Did Robertson say it or not?

And by the way, the positio... (Below threshold)
Chris:

And by the way, the position Stephanopoulos held, when he mentioned assassinating Hussein, 12 months before he wrote the article, was senior advisor to the President. Not Cabinet member. So the headline on this thread is wrong on two parts. It should say "Former Clinton Advisor Called For Hussein Assassination."

And I'm just curious. Now that so many of you are jumping on the "we should remove Chavez from power" bandwagon, I'm wondering. I'm sure we'll all agree that actually taking the initiative to remove the leader of a country with whom we aren't at war is a very serious step, only to be used when the leader is such a threat that we can't tolerate having him in power. So could someone please point me to all of the previous Chavez posts on this board? You know, when you were all worked up about what a threat he was to us.

you wrote, this thread, ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

you wrote, this thread, in minimizing defense about Chavez that "it" (criticism, notice, whatever) was "about the oil" and suggested otherwise that there was no otherwise noteworthy problem or issue about Chavez.

If I can draw from that mangled english that you mean I believe that Chavez' backing out of his price deal with the White House after Clinton left office and changing the tax on foreign oil companies in Venezuela are the only criticisms that can be made of him, you're wrong. Let's look at what Robertson said in his assassination endorsement, as it was what I was referring to:

It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

It's not hard to tell what he's concerned about about (I'll give you a hint, it's not being more like Christ). In any case, if you can provide some threat that Chavez poses to the U.S. that is believable or documented in some legitimate way (and thus the justification for, if not assassination, then a reason to seriously want him removed), please do.

John,

I would agree that he is kind of running a banana republic down there (though I don't know who he's supposed to be the puppet of), and he's certainly done some questionable things. I also know that a large majority of Venezuelans have been in abject poverty for decades, made only worse by Friedman/neoliberal globalization. 77% of all farmland is owned by less than 1% of the population, and the poor have for years fled the rural areas to the cities, which are now encased in endless slums. Past presidents have promised to do something, but never have. Chavez is giving the poor land that no one is using. They love him because he "gives them bread and bricks". The rich in that country, who own the media by the way, hate him. So, to answer your question, I think Chavez is an interesting man in an interesting situation, and I wonder how his approach will turn out. In any case I don't think he's any danger to us, and the Cold War is over, if you think we have something to fear from socialism, go to Sweden.

btw what sabre rattling? Could someone provide a link?

OK, quick current events qu... (Below threshold)
Chris:

OK, quick current events quiz. When Bush said Charles Taylor should step down as President of Liberia, who said the following: “How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.' It's one thing to say, we will give you money if you step down and we will give you troops if you step down, but just to order him to step down? He doesn't work for us.”

Hint: He owns a Christian broadcasting network, once ran for the Republican presidential nomination, and has been in the news recently after calling for the assassiantion of Hugo Chavez. Oh, and he had significant financial interests in Liberia.

mantis-Chavez is not... (Below threshold)
john:

mantis-
Chavez is not necessarily a puppet of anyone at this point but he does remind me of a young Castro. Chavez may be adopted by Iran or North Korea or someone else who wants a base to take pot shots at the US. We left Castro alone and the only good that came of it was the abject poverty of the Cuban people and the tense brush with nuclear war.

He is talking aggressively trying to build concensus against the US. The people down there have plenty of reason to support anything to change their squalid conditions. Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat. Chavez is a cunning power hungry tyrant that will leverage hate for personal gain. We should have none of it.

We should help the people of Venezuela with trade and aid.

If we leave him alone and he trades oil for weapons we will have a terror base in our backyard. He is talking tough. He is acting tough. The only thing he lacks is the firepower to back it up. In that regard he is currently harmless.

Unless he demonstrates his undying willingness to cooperate with us then he should go now. This is not a game and our tolerance for his type of government in our backyard is nonexistent. Just because conditions sucked in Venezuela before Chavez does not make him the right guy to fix it. I don't think he is interesting nor is the situation interesting. It is annoying at best and dangerous at worst.

Once again, links please. ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Once again, links please. I want examples of him having anything to do with "leveraging hate for personal gain", trading oil for weapons (or being aggressive towards us or his neighbors in any way), talking tough (in some way that is threatening to us). Anything. As for being adopted by NK or Iran, are you kidding? What makes you believe either of those countries is the Soviet Union? As far as this:

Unless he demonstrates his undying willingness to cooperate with us then he should go now.

Is that your criteria? All nations' leaders must do what we say (or what Bush says, rather. Clinton's administration had a deal with Chavez) or step down (or be "taken out")? Interesting foreign policy. I think we've tried that before, the guys we put in power never work out very well.

Let me clarify a bit. I am... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Let me clarify a bit. I am aware of Venezuela buying weapons from Brazil and Russia (with money, by the way). I'm also aware of the Rumsfeld's claims that maybe some of those weapons (AK-47 rifles) will go to terrorists, though he has no evidence to back that up at all. I would expect more than just the suggestion of the Pentagon that he could give weapons to people if he wanted to. Any country could. Other than some light diplomatic strife with Columbia, what can you point to?

The uproar comes not nec... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

The uproar comes not necessarily from the request, it comes from the request of THE LEADER OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT.

I am a Christian and on the right of the political spectrum, but Robertson is not my leader. He's not the leader of the Christian Right anymore than Jesse Jackson is the leader of all black people or Bill Clinton is the leader of all people named Bill, Mr. Bill K.

Interesting Link to FCC com... (Below threshold)
anon:

Interesting Link to FCC complaint petition against Pat Robertson.

http://www.subpariq.blogspot.com/




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy