A History of Violence: Tuomioja, Halonen, and the Welfare State
“Now the EU spoke in one voice, and it was listened to. The fighting in Lebanon would not have been ceased so quickly if there had not been a common EU stance.”
Definitely agree there, the EU with Finland at the helm had definitely shaved off an hour, maybe two, of fighting. But who knows, if the EU would have acted even quicker without the ceasefire-terminology debacle, the violence may have stopped 3-4 hours earlier instead. Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Erkki Tuomioja and Finnish President Tarja Halonen were high-profile players during the Israel-Hezzbollah crisis, they were in charge of ending the violence - but as welfare state socialists, are they the right people for the job?
Welfare state socialists strongly support lots of rules and regulations that govern our lives - and each of these rules and regulations are backed by threats, repercussions, and eventually violence. Think - you don’t want to be forced into the army or civil service…you’re threatened with jailtime. Don’t want to goto jail? Men with guns will visit your house. Don’t agree with the insanely high taxes? Again…threats, jailtime, men with guns. Every welfare state initiative is backed by violence. Do you think the people would actually voluntarily pay these outragious taxes? Of course not, the welfare statists need the prisons and the guns to impose their ideology onto you.
But, I’m not an anarchist, I realize we do need laws, especially when it comes to violent crime. The point is that we should have less rules, less regulations. Take the U.S. as an example - lots of rules, lots of regulations…and it’s all enforced by violence, and it shows! Some people might argue that the U.S. and Finland have all these laws to prevent violence in the first place - Finland has stifiling taxes for social programmes to curb the possibilities of violence in society, the U.S. has tough border controls and lackluster privacy concerns to curb potential terrorists. This may be true, but all of that reminds me too much of George Bush’s “we must wage war to create peace” policies, it’s quite hypocritical to end violence by acting in a violent manner. It’s like the parent who punishes their kid by spanking them because they hit another child.
So I wonder - are welfare statists the right people to make peace? Israel and Lebanon have certain policies to keep the peace, and as we’ve seen, aren’t afraid to use violence to uphold these policies. Is the welfare state much different?
I agree with your premise that the welfare state needs violence to acheive its aims. But, I don’t know if the welfare state, per se, has anything to do with foreign affairs and stopping wars.
At best, one could argue that they’re not about fostering job growth and improving the economy, which is something that seems necessary for lasting peace.
Regardless, this particular crew just doesn’t have much credebility abroad. I think that’s one reason why they were voted-in. People kind of feared Finland becoming a little wave-making machine.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Welfare state again.. You seem to be favor of Latin American model of having the army in charge of making decisions. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just funny how your cultural shock is reacting and all you can find is the criticism toward welfare state. I know it’s sad when the junkies get their money for nothing, but you’re missing link with your theory of social democracy and foreign policy.
Comment by EU Civil Servant — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
liberal and progressive mindset
– i.e. that society must be managed to produce the outcome that technocrats believe society really desires, rather than an outcome the actual members of society prove they desire by building it.
technocrats in charge again.
Comment by winter — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
Phil kind of almost realizes that all states are based on the monopoly of (legitimate) violence. But then the propaganda part of his brain takes once again over and, surprise, it’s a welfare state “problem” after all (in fact, it’s not a problem but blessing, mostly, as long as we’re talking about democracies). Anyway, it’s sort of funny to watch, this twisting, but as an essay it’s a F, I’m afraid.
Winter again, this true believer in the Fuhrer prinzip (as long as the fuhrer is Bush), all of sudden changes his mind. Now he says that there should be just “natural” evolution, no leadership whatsoever. (Sorry if the idea is a bit difficult, winter.)
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Your examples of rules and regulations supported by social democrats are a bit odd. Conservative parties in general don’t approve of not paying taxes or shirking conscription, do they?
If you tried, I’m sure you could find examples of rules and regulations backed by force that are mostly supported by socialists.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Lets see the EU/UN lift a finger to get the three Soldiers released. That was part of the whole UN resolution demanding the ceasefire. Unconditional release of the three.
They might want to make sure that happens before their peacekeepers are Hezbollah’s new human shields.
Here is a blog kept by some members of the Lebanese Forces. Interesting insight into the situation:
http://www.ouwet.com/
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Oh yes, states would not need to have the ‘threat of violence’ if people could just follow the damn rules!
And we have so many damn rules because people always make excuses to get around them!
(I would love to rebuilt the Government because you’ll never be able to weed out all the crap that has creeped into it.)
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
“fuhrer is Bush”
Cool guy this Bush. He was willing to change the world after 9/11, when the world was stuck on a 60 year diplomacy failure.
You may not like him, but the outcome is going to change the world. At least one can say Failure is not an option here in the USA, but the EU seems to be stuck on Failure.
Comment by winter — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
But then the propaganda part of his brain takes once again over and, surprise, it’s a welfare state “problem†after all (in fact, it’s not a problem but blessing, mostly, as long as we’re talking about democracies).
Yes, all government backs their policies by force, but in the welfare state, we have even more rules/laws/regulations…and that equates to more force, and the threat of more violence.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Threat of violence in the Norden. Sweet.
Comment by Perttu — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
Your examples of rules and regulations supported by social democrats are a bit odd. Conservative parties in general don’t approve of not paying taxes or shirking conscription, do they?
I’m thinking more about liberals vs. socialists.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Here in Finland we have democracy. People make decisions about law, regulations and welfare state together. That is the democratic way. Maybe USA should send their marines in here to free Finland from this democracy.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
12: Finland has the illusion of democracy. The real power is concentrated in the hands of a welfare-statist elite, who control the state bureaucracies responsible for shaping people’s opinions.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
I completely agree with your reservations on the idea summed up by Bush Jnr as “we must wage war to create peaceâ€Â. I agree it is indeed hypercritical. For instance, as is the death penalty, i.e. it’s illegal to kill, yet if you should kill we will kill you.
However, if you believe that violence is the potential of the police at somepoint (most often only very far down the line) arresting you for breaking the law, then I think your definition of violence is a little too stretched. Should you for instance not pay your taxes, the Finnish authorities will not beat you up or bash you over the head with a batton, even if it does go so far as that the police are involved (which I should imagine is incredibly rare in itself). I doubt that there is a single country in the world totally free from any taxation whatsoever, so surely that means that under this definition of violence, every state is violent in nature, which seems a little ludicrous.
As with the welfare state and its link to the foreign policy regarding the middle east, again this is weak at best, and probably nothing to do with it in fact. For instance, the French government was a major international actor in calling for a ceasefire, and it has a centre-right government.
Comment by JG — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Nr 13, that’s ridiculous. Are you suggesting the Finnish people are brainwashed? If so, it doesn’t seem to be working so well. Why doesn’t the Social Democrats have 75% plus of the parliament mandates? Clearly the “welfare-statist elite” aren’t doing a very good job in “controlling the state bureaucracies responsible for shaping peoples’ opinions”.
You could say that the USA has the illusion of democracy. It is essentially run as a ultra-capitalistic venture even at the government level. Bush, or any of his other recent predecessors would never have become president without all the money (largely from corporations and the rich) behind him. You can also point to potential corruption in e.g. Flordia during his first election. Rather useful that his brother was the governor and the person in charge of elections in this state was a Republican. You also see accepted gerrymandering of the congress’ electoral districts by the party in power in the given state. Corruption also seems to be apparent in the contracts for Irak’s reconstruction. And of course, there is the whole argument that the USA only invaded Irak in the first place due to oil. (By the way, sorry to use the USA as an example here, I am sure there are other countries with equally poor records in such matters).
Comment by JG — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Nr 13, that’s ridiculous.
Yes, now Finnpundit turned out to be anti-demcratic as weel. Why am I not surprised?
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
15: Are you suggesting the Finnish people are brainwashed?
Yes.
If so, it doesn’t seem to be working so well. Why doesn’t the Social Democrats have 75% plus of the parliament mandates? Clearly the “welfare-statist elite†aren’t doing a very good job in “controlling the state bureaucracies responsible for shaping peoples’ opinionsâ€Â
One of the peculiar traits of the welfare state is how much the so-called bourgeois/porvari parties have co-opted welfare statism in their political lines, even though welfare statism is really not in their interests. Suffice it to say that those parties have historically always been very much on the defensive (so close to the Soviet Union that we were), that the threat of state theft of their properties has always been hanging over them. They’ve been forced to submit, to the point that they’ve begun to emulate the tenets of the welfare state (I’m not a big fan of Kokoomus at all; I think they’re a bunch of wimps).
As to Keskusta, who are right-wing enough to want to own their own farmland, but left-wing enough to want the state to subsidize those farmlands, enough said. Their freeriding is clear to see, and as long as the welfare state guarantees those subsidies, they will support the welfare state.
So by then we are already approaching the 75%. True, the entrenched elite doesn’t always consist of Social Democrats, but it does consist of an elite that supports a welfare-state to the point that they want to see its continued propagation.
As to your other rants, that can be written off as yet another bigoted anti-American tirade from a Finn.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
Hmm, you claim to believe in democracy, and you critisise (entirely legitimately) Finland, but then when someone critises USA they become “bigoted” and “anti-American”. That’s rather a double standard, surely?
Anyway, ignoring this, Finland is a democracy. Most people support the idea of state intervention to ensure people who fall on hardtimes are cared for. There is a certain community sprit perhaps in the low-populated Nordic countries that makes for this kind of desire. The bourgeois parties such as Kok/Saml and Kesk/Cent just know that should they be actively for dismantling the welfare state, they would see a very large number of their voters moving elsewhere.
Comment by JG — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
in the welfare state, we have even more rules/laws/regulations…and that equates to more force, and the threat of more violence.
So your theory is that in the more liberal USA government uses less force. I see … have you checked the jail statistics lately?
Why are you wrong then? Legitimacy and social injustice come to mind … Have you seen Apocalypse Now! or rather read Heart Of Darkness. I’m not sure if they describe a “Libertarian” dysutopia, but surely Kurtz wasn’t a (welfare) statist, yet his rule wasn’t exactly nice. (The strange jump to Conrad above meant that I found it too tiresome to start a proper argument.)
Comment by tomia — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Finnpundit is pro democracy as long as people vote the way he thinks is right. A typical right-wing stupidity, and a dangerous one, too.
And it propably would go without saying that he understands next to nothing about Finland’s political history.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Should you for instance not pay your taxes, the Finnish authorities will not beat you up or bash you over the head with a batton, even if it does go so far as that the police are involved (which I should imagine is incredibly rare in itself)
They’ll give you several years in jail. And if you don’t wanna goto and put up a fuss, men with guns….
Comment by Phil — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Most people support the idea of state intervention to ensure people who fall on hardtimes are cared for.
Yeah, and it’s a shame the welfare state does little or nothing about that.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
So your theory is that in the more liberal USA government uses less force.
Not at all, I said, “take the U.S. as an example - lots of rules, lots of regulations…and it’s all enforced by violence, and it shows! “
Comment by Phil — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Not at all, I said, “take the U.S. as an example
So you think the USA is a welfare state. This is getting once again too confusing. But whatever, more regulation and so forth doesn’t mean more force or even threat of it, not necessarily anyway. If people think it’s all legitimate they voluntarely don’t break the rules.
Comment by tomia — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
“They’ll give you several years in jail. And if you don’t wanna goto and put up a fuss, men with guns…”
I don’t doubt it. My point is I am sure that this is the case in pretty much every single country worldwide. So, it’s stretching the boundaries of the word violence to include this. Although, I am sure there are a lot of countries were they’d actually be bashing you over the head as they take you away!
Comment by JG — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
A few words on history:
Kokoomus (the big right-wing party) has “ideologically” supported a welfare state because it has nationalistic roots. Nationalists, after all, invented the welfare state in Bismarck’s Germany. “We’re all in the same boat” and so forth.
Keskusta (the big centre/agricultural party) supported a welfare state simply because when the idea was rippening most of the Finns were farmers.
SDP (the big left-wing party) supported a welfare state historically because they believed that Finland could be turned socialist gradually (nowadys it sounds like a joke, I know).
All big parties support a welfare state simply because voters want them to. Not so long ago a vast majority of Finns were after all third-world poor peasants. Parties don’t want to commit a suicide and share the fate of Nusus (a small “libertarian” party).
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
In nr. 17: Finnpundit even though welfare statism is really not in their interests.
Oh but yes it is. Most definitely it is. Notice a little speck on the history map, 1918 ring any bells??? Most bloody civil war due to civil unrest due to social inequality. You really *do* not want the Finns to become polarized - they are bipolar on a good day.
Comment by Hank W. — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 12:22 am
“in the welfare state, we have even more rules/laws/regulations…and that equates to more force, and the threat of more violence.
So your theory is that in the more liberal USA government uses less force. I see … have you checked the jail statistics lately?
Why are you wrong then? Legitimacy and social injustice come to mind … Have you seen Apocalypse Now! or rather read Heart Of Darkness. I’m not sure if they describe a “Libertarian†dysutopia, but surely Kurtz wasn’t a (welfare) statist, yet his rule wasn’t exactly nice. (The strange jump to Conrad above meant that I found it too tiresome to start a proper argument.) ”
I always thought that Somalia was a Libertarian wet dream. Hell, they had no government at all. You could do anything without the state getting involved - assuming the warlords would let you, of course.
Just imagine - no taxes, no regulation. Paradise.
So what happened? Well earlier this year a group of Islamist religious fanatics took over Mogadishu. I doubt it would have happened if the locals loved the statis quo. But the port in Mogadishu recently opened for the first time in years…
Like Fred Fry said in #7, you need to have rules, and part of that is having a state monopoly on violence when people refuse to comply with those rules.
(By the way, let me state the obvious that an Islamic theocracy is NOT something I support.)
Comment by dhen — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 3:57 am
Hank W: valid point, yet…
Do you really think that Finnish workers are going to blow up and pull their bosses in front of “workers’ councils”, be tried and found guilty of exploitation of the workers, and shot ten minutes later, as in the Finnish Civil War? The workers like their MTV too much to bother.
It’s fascinating to find that so many Finns still believe that a lot of their society’s structure is still based on the fear of that old threat. It was held quite plausible as late as the 1970’s, when the taistolais-kidz realized that this was a real fear that porvarit still had. And the fear had a lot of significance: in one history book on Sweden, I was surprised to learn that the historian believed the example of the Finnish Civil War was the critical impetus which led to the initial welfare-state experimentation in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.
Yet all of that fear was based on the reality in the east called the Soviet Union. That is now gone, and almost (given the memories of young people) forgotten. There is no more to fear from militant workers. The right-wing property owners should not continue to kiss left-wing ass, as Kokoomus continues to do. Even if the welfare state would be abolished tomorrow (which is the right thing to do), the workers in Finland would only want to enjoy the standard of living that they’ve become accustomed to.
And that is totally possible in today’s world.
What is not tenable, though, is the continued fostering of an exploitative welfare-state, which has a damaging effect on the rest of the world, - especially the developing world.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 4:53 am
1918
No need to refer to that ancient thing. All big Finnish parties support the welfare state because of their own reasons. Kookomus because it’s traditionally a nationalist party. Keskusta because it’s traditionally a farmers’ party and just a few decades ago most Finns were poor farmers or at least lived in the countryside. SDP because it fought communism and prepared the country for socialism with gradual improvments of social welfare and such things.
Nowadays the ideologies are shifting here and there, though, I must admit. SDP has abondoned socialism and become more and more a nationalist party, while Kokoomus has become more and more an “internationalist” one, and Keskusta has become the main conservative party. But they all have one common interest regarding the welfare state: to get votes in elections. Abandoning the popular welfare ideology could mean the fate of the Nusus for them.
Comment by tomia — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 7:07 am
Not necessarily, but you see unemployed drunks in Kotka crashing a few windows. Now you mass up unemployed drunks, and you’ll have a few little riots, maybe smashing a lot more places up. And why should you care of the developing world? USA is the one exploiting it?
Comment by Hank W. — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Finpundit, Kokoomus has a strong tradition of supporting the welfare state all by its own, as many nationalist parties tend to do. No civil war of the Soviet Union needed. Keskusta, too, has it own reasons and so does the SDP (fighting Communism for one). How does it feel to live in world where strong black-and-white opinions have replaced all facts or the need to study things? It may be fun at first but isn’t it in the long run very scary? Gradually you realize that you’re all alone …
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 9:46 am
So you think the USA is a welfare state.
To some degree, certainly.
Comment by Phil — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 10:32 am
To some degree, certainly.
What if I happened to own all the land around your house and then refused you the right to cross that land? Obviously there would have to be a law (and a police force to enforce the law) forbidding me to do that. Now, the idea of the law would be to ensure your welfare (without it you would die of hunger) and enforce it if needed with violence or threat of violence against me.
Because you seem to realize that this whole question of welfare states is a question of degree, I’d be interested to know if that kind of a system could be called a welfare state in your opinion. I mean, do you think that all states are necessarily “welfare sates” (and thus evil) or is there a line beyond which a state ceases to be a welfare state?
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 10:59 am
Phil (et al.)
When you talk about liberalism, are you talking about American concept of liberalism or European? They have totally different meaning.
Comment by Perttu — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
“Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Erkki Tuomioja and Finnish President Tarja Halonen were high-profile players during the Israel-Hezzbollah crisis, they were in charge of ending the violence”
What?!? The major players were the UN secretary Kofi Annan and the Italian government. Italy hosted the main meeting in Rome between the parties, it has been the only country who has been constantly available for providing soldiers and pushed the rest of Europe (mostly France) to participate to the mission.
Italy sent its 2500 soldiers already today. Finland will send its 200 ones in a couple of months… The finnish foreign ministry was in the meeting just because Finland holds the EU presidency for these 6 months… Another country would have done the same.
Comment by Rainer — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Perttu
Its all the same:
American concept of liberalism or European– i.e. that society must be managed to produce the outcome that technocrats believe society really desires, rather than an outcome the actual members of society prove they desire by building it.
Comment by winter — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
OK, this is really weird. I can see what I posted here from this computer, but not from any other computer.
Comment by dhen — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 2:19 am
36#
I believe that Rainer has hit the nail on the head. Finland has not been the major player here, first it was France, whose official line was copied by Tuomioja within the short span of 24-36 hrs. of the fighting, then after the French cut and run(then reversed itself), the Italians stepped up to the plate and brought the foreign FM’s to Rome…..not Helsinki.
Tuomioja’s philosphical moral relativism that equates both sides in the conflict has been disgusting, especially when one sides’ military tactics (Hez) involves using its own public as cannon fodder in order to get the IC enraged over the ensuing casualties.
That Hezbollah’s propaganda achievements have been masterfull, is due to the 15-20 million dollars pumped yearly into that dept. Most of the IC has been duped by the supposed “excessive carnage”, while its well known that Hez fighters were dressed in civilian attire, and mostly to blame for any of the civilians killed in Israeli strikes.
The Halonen-Tuomioja “Linja” can be summed up in Halonen’s interview with the (terrorist shilling) Al-Jazeera network, Halonen: ” The bombs on both sides are the same”.
Comment by KGS59 — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Winter:
It is not the same. In Anglo-Saxon culture liberalism is the opposite to conservatism. In the German rooted philosophy (In Finland we call that Heigelian school) liberalism is a theory on strong society and weak state.
Not the same at all. Read more philosophy.
Comment by Perttu — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 11:45 am
By the way, winter:
I asked that question just to test how much you people actually know about what you are talking about and how much it is your personal point of view without real knowledge on theory. Well.. only you responded, would’ve like to know what the others have had to say about this.
Thank you, gives me peace of mind knowing that this is just a talk show-blog.
Comment by Perttu — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Perttu
And I answered to see if you actually understood the basic principles that liberals act on, mainly only a material solution, a tax increase, can fix any problem, even if the population under control does not want the problem fixed.
Comment by winter — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
The welfare state can throw you into jail or make you pay fines, like any state, if you don’t play it by the book, but I don’t think they are particularly violent. Welfare state socialists would happily skip every modernization round of the defence forces and build more daycare centers etc. Check out the news. They have this discussion every time the generals ask for more lethal tools for their customer service.
I guess Arndt Pekurinen, if someone, was really threatened with violence as he refused to join the Winter War, but the state, that eventually executed him, wasn’t quite exactly a post-kekkoslovakian welfare state. A democratorship would be the word.
OK, “Köntys” Lipponen and Mara Ahtisaari would probably like to see Finland in NATO, but the real welfare state socialists consider them right-wingers. If the bloody “model student” EU policy is any parallel to the possible NATO policy, I’m going to grow a beard, burn the damn military passport and go around wearing a Mercedes-Benz logo on the jacket. (Not that it would make any difference. I’m TJ-3650 (that’s negative TJ) about on the next independence day and there has been not a single exercise in that time. Heck, the damn commies are skipping my modernization round.)
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
Estonia’s experimentation with alternative economic models continues to pose a threat to the Finnish welfare state. Suffice it to say that Finland will continue to skew its commentary regarding Estonia in ways that will always find fault. If that doesn’t work, it resorts to the standard Finnish Kommie Klutz form of criticism: it predicts a gloomy future that is sure to come just around the corner.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 2:00 am
Oops! The above comment was originally destined for the Estonia thread, where you can find it now.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 2:02 am
As to Tuomioja and Halonen, they have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of peace in the middle east: far from it, as eager supporters of the disastrous EU decision to forward some e500 million to the Hamas-run Palestinian state, they become de facto financiers of terrorism.
Does that mean that Finland supports terrorism? Of course. So what are the ramifications? Well, Finland become a legitimate target for terrorism.
The Finnish state must be eliminated. It is a liability for the rest of the world.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 2:06 am
disastrous EU decision to forward some e500 million to the Hamas-run Palestinian state
Finnbundit’s Adventures in the Fantasy World, part 875: The Voice in My Head Is Speaking Again - The Finns Must Be Masscred.
While back in the real world:
“It provides funding for healthcare, power supplies and support for poor families, while maintaining a funding freeze on the Hamas-led government.”
“A Hamas official dismissed the plan … “
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 7:11 am
“For those keeping score, this most recent discovery raises the total number of chemical weapons found in Iraq since 2003 to more than 700.”
I guess Bush was right.
Comment by winter — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 5:04 pm