"As the Pope affirmed, were reason to turn a deaf ear to the divine and relegate religion to the ambit of subcultures, it would automatically provoke violent reactions," Lajolo, who also serves as president of the Governatorate of the Vatican City State, told the assembly.
"It falls to all interested parties - to civil society as well as to states - to promote religious freedom and a sane, social tolerance that will disarm extremists even before they can begin to corrupt others with their hatred of life and liberty," he said.
Lajolo referred to the story of the Tower of Babel, saying the "confusion of tongues" in the Biblical city was a symbol of fracturing and hostilities in the contemporary world.
"Human pride hampers the acknowledgment of one's neighbor and the recognition of his or her needs and even more makes people distrusting," he said.
"Today, that same negative fundamental attitude has given rise to a new barbarism that threatens world peace," the Vatican minister said.
Terrorists bent on "rejecting the best achievements of our civilization" are one example, Lajolo said.
Major powers, in their attempt to make the world more fair, may also occasionally slide into believing that this can only be achieved by force, he said.
"It can go so far as to regard the possession of nuclear weapons as an element of national pride," he said.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Convenience store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier at more than 2,100 locations and switching to its own brand of fuel.
The retailer said Wednesday it will purchase fuel from several distributors, including Tower Energy Group of Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City, and Houston-based Frontier Oil Corp.
A spokeswoman for Dallas-based 7-Eleven said its 20-year contract with Citgo Petroleum Corp. ends next week. About 2,100 of 7-Eleven's 5,300 U.S. stores sell gasoline.
Citgo is a Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, and the foreign parent became a public-relations issue for 7- Eleven because of comments by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez has called President George W. Bush the devil and an alcoholic. The U.S. government has warned that Chavez is a destabilizing force in Latin America.
7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris said that, "Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez."
Chabris said a boycott of Citgo gasoline would hurt the 4,000 employees of the U.S. subsidiary, who have no connection to Venezuela.
7-Eleven had been considering creating its own brand of fuel since at least early last year. Company officials said at the time they had spoken with independent fuel distributors.
Good for 7-11. It is a good thing that the 20 year contract is almost over. This is Bad for the 4,000 employees for Citgo US subsidiary. But with a free economy other companies will buy Citgo oil. No doubt about it.
Creating their own 7-11 brand gasoline company will provide jobs. Some jobs go away, but then new ones are created. That's how our economy works.
The Dow will be the highest today it has ever been in history. Looks like President Bush is doing something right too!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Saturday, September 16, 2006
THE PRESIDENT: It's always a pleasure to be introduced into the Rose Garden. Thank you, Wendell. Thank you for coming. I'm looking forward to answering some of your questions.
This week our nation paused to mark the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It was a tough day for a lot of our citizens. I was so honored to meet with family members and first responders, workers at the Pentagon, all who still had heaviness in their heart. But they asked me a question, you know, they kept asking me, what do you think the level of determination for this country is in order to protect ourselves, is what they want to know.
You know, for me, it was a reminder about how I felt right after 9/11. I felt a sense of determination and conviction about doing everything that is necessary to protect the people. I'm going to go back to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. I'm going to talk to world leaders gathered there about our obligation to defend civilization and liberty, to support the forces of freedom and moderation throughout the Middle East. As we work with the international community to defeat the terrorists and extremists, to provide an alternative to their hateful ideology, we must also provide our military and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our country from another attack. And the reason they need those tools is because the enemy wants to attack us again.
The gaggle with David Gregory here (LOL!)
Dave. He's back.
Q Sorry, I've got to get disentangled --
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like me the go to somebody else here, until you -- (laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: But take your time, please. (Laughter.)
Q I really apologize for that. Anyway --
THE PRESIDENT: I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?
THE PRESIDENT: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.
Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.
Q But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --
THE PRESIDENT: The point I just made is the most important point.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, the point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.
Q No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --
THE PRESIDENT: I know you think it's an important point. (Laughter.)
Q Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?
THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.
And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.
Q This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your --
THE PRESIDENT: Next man.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Kerry says the only reason he didn’t compete in more states in 2004 was that he ran out of money. He says this was also the reason he did not adequately respond to a series of devastating TV ads by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, a group that questioned Kerry’s service in Vietnam and criticized his later opposition to the war.
“They had money behind the lies, and we did not have sufficient money behind the truth,” Kerry laments.
Asked if he dreads the prospect of being “Swift-Boated” all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.
“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”
Kerry’s tough talk triggers laughter from John O’Neill, a fellow Vietnam veteran who helped found Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and wrote a blistering 2004 book on Kerry, “Unfit for Command.”
“Well, he’s got eight times as much time to prepare for us as he spent in Vietnam,” says O’Neill, referring to Kerry’s short tour of duty.
Kerry’s blunt rhetoric on the Swift Boat Veterans is a far cry from his 2004 attempt to straddle the question of whether to fund U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” he said during the election, cementing his reputation as a flip-flopper.
Yeah right. What will you do it with Mr. Kerry? Spitballs?
I'm so sorry on the passing of former Texas Governor Anne Richards,41 and 43's arch rival. Too bad she never had anything nice to say to Bushes.
Richards sealed her partisan reputation with a blast at George H. Bush, a fellow Texan who was vice president at the time: "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
On her campaign for Re-Election for Governor here:
Two years later, she underestimated her young Republican challenger from West Texas, going so far as to refer to George W. Bush as “some jerk,” a commend that drew considerable criticism. Later, she acknowledged that the younger candidate has been much more effective at “staying on message” and made none of the mistakes that her campaign strategists had expected. She was beaten, 53 percent to 46 percent.
Update** W's statement on her death here:
President George W. Bush said on Thursday he was saddened by the death of one-time political rival and former Texas Gov. Ann Richards and that "Texas has lost one of its great daughters."
Richards, a blunt, silver-haired, motorcycle rider, died on Wednesday at 73 after suffering from esophageal cancer.
"Ann loved Texas, and Texans loved her. As a public servant she earned respect and admiration," Bush said in a statement. "Ann became a national role model, and her charm, wit, and candor brought a refreshing vitality to public life."
One good thing is the House will vote on the Border Fence today here.
House Republicans seeking to build a pre-election record for getting tough on illegal immigration plan a new vote Thursday on a border fence proposal that won House approval last December.
The bill calls for building more than 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico. The House approved the same amount of fencing when it passed its enforcement-focused immigration bill last December.
Another good thing today, W's numbers are up here:
President Bush Job Approval
RCP AverageApprove: 42.0%
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Mohammed Ali Hamadi was released despite strong U.S. objections, FOX News learned. Those objections were raised in phone calls to German authorities by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, as well as by top-level State Department and administration counter-terrorism officials.
"[The Germans] ignored us and didn't give us enough time to pursue it through legal action," an official told FOX News on the condition of anonymity. "They gave us very short notice."
U.S. officials said they "can't rule out" the possibility that Germany deported Hamadi, after he had served 19 years of a life sentence, in exchange for the release of Susanne Osthoff, a German archeologist taken hostage in Iraq and freed four days after Hamadi's deportation. German authorities have denied any such deal was made.
Now the bastard has re-joined Hizbollah! Crikey! He should have been executed and dumped on a tramack!
Its been a while since I did a post on a new naval vessel. First Lady Laura Bush was there to christen the USS Texas. From her speech here:
Wherever she sails, I know Texas will build on the proud legacy of her predecessors. Less than an hour north of here, visitors to the San Jacinta Battleground State Historic Site can explore the second U.S.S. Texas. More than 60 years ago, the young men of her crew -- men like you -- bombarded Omaha Beach and Pointe Du Hoc during the D-Day landings. They were supporting the young men -- men like you -- who scaled sheer cliffs and charged into Nazi gunfire to reclaim a continent for liberty.
Texas later sustained damage during her Atlantic service, but German guns couldn't stop her. She was repaired and made her way to the Pacific where she bombarded enemy defenses in Iwo Jima and Okinawa to make way for American soldiers and Marines -- men like you -- to defeat an enemy that had attack America unprovoked.
The crew of the Battleship Texas were men like you, because in the face of tremendous danger, they put aside their greatest fears to take up the cause of freedom. Like you, they were driven by their determination to protect the United States of America, and by their deep love of liberty.
You serve on Texas at a time when our country once again faces a threat to America's homeland, and a global threat to freedom. Like those who came before you, the crew of this new vessel will make our country proud.
"[W]e 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
WMD was in Iraq (the dems say). They voted for the war. Now they want to withdraw and give up just to get their power back? Go figure.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Wake up call
Sept. 11 was the latest in a series of wake-up calls that we had been ignoring about the ferocious and unrelenting nature of the militant wing of Islam. The terrorists want us to be Muslim – or dead. There is no room to negotiate. They are evil and we must fight them. And we must realize that it is better to fight them in the Middle East than in North America.
Thanks Bill. You are a great American! I'm glad you live in Fullerton. It's Great place to live and my family likes living there. And we agree that fighting the War over there is a lot better than fighting it here! AMEN!
And then we get the "Get out of Iraq" ones here:
Evaluating the Iraq War
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction and didn't harbor terrorists. Now, it is a terrorist haven, thanks to our invasion and occupation, which has provided a training ground for al-Qaida. Instead of mock battles in the desert, they have real battles with us and are successful. Statistically, you would think we could have easily won the war by now. Last December, our president told us there were about 25,000 insurgents in Iraq, and that 6 percent of them were outside terrorists. That's only 1,500 against 130,000-plus U.S. troops, 200,000-plus Iraqi troops and police and 26 million citizens who supposedly want a unity government.
Today, there is no mention of how many there are or why we can't defeat them. Since they dress the same as citizens, and the citizens either harbor them or refuse to point out where they are, how can we possibly win? About 98 percent of the killings daily are of Iraqi citizens, and the other 2 percent are U.S. soldiers, which amounts to a civil war, citizens killing each other. Our president has said that it isn't a civil war because they have a government in place.The United States had a government in place when we had our civil war.
When our president says that we must stay there until the job is done, why doesn't someone raise his hand and ask "what happens if the job doesn't get done?"
My response to you Chucky is if the job doesn't get done our country is a "goner." We will win the war if we all hunker together and get the job done. With victory we will achieve peace. It is the only way. We learned in WWII that "appeasement" did not work with Adolph Hitler and his fascist Nazis. It's the same thing with the Islamofascists trying to destroy Democracy and America. Funny thing there is no translation in Arabic for "Democracy." I wonder why?
And another point to Chucky on the "civil war." President Bush ment to say that the insergents don't have an established "government." If you remember in your US History (possibly you were asleep in class at the time) the confederacy had a government led by their President Jefferson Davis whom the South elected. Like I said the Arabic Islamic world does not support democracy with free elections. W is giving them that chance. If not, we'll go in and kill them. Got it?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire -- unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC bills the two-night production as a public service that is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". That is false - it is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats.
"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats. The Walt Disney Corporation could have given Americans an honest look at September 11. Instead, the company abandoned its duty to the truth -- and embraced the fiction known as "The Path to 9/11."
Hugh Hewitt had the producer on yesterday. They go by the 9/11 commision report. The truth is being told. Clinton is trying to re-write history. He put up the wall with Jamie Garrick and she was on the commision. Why did Sandy Bruger steal papers from the National Archive? He was guilty of not getting OBL. He said it did not happend. What a legacy a former President has left. Sorry. ABC please show it. We need to see though the lies and what did happen.
Because the program specifically deals with the Clinton administration's failure to act when bin Laden was offered, a left-wing outcry has erupted on the Internet along with attempts to vilify the miniseries before it is even shown.
David Brock's Web site carries an article with a headline that reads "Right wing uses ABC docudrama to push debunked claim blaming Clinton administration for 9-11."
Pressure from the Left and from Clinton allies may account for an unusual posting by director David L. Cunningham titled "Clarification," which was placed on the "Path" Web site.
It stated that the series "is not a documentary," nor is it "a right wing agenda movie."
"The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush," it also read.
The posting has since been removed from the ABC Web site.
Clinton colleagues Richard Ben-Veniste and John Podesta reportedly expressed their extreme displeasure about the way the docudrama portrays the Clinton administration. Their frustration likely stems from the extensive efforts that were taken to keep the information from being made public.
Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and creator of the notorious wall that was erected between the FBI and CIA, served as a 9/11 Commission panel member. Because of potential conflicts of interest, the propriety of Gorelick's membership on the panel was questionable.
Ben-Veniste's role as a longtime partisan Democrat attorney made him another highly questionable commission member.
Sandy Berger's bizarre and illegal behavior (the actions in which the former national security adviser from the Clinton administration stuffed classified documents into his pants and socks) actually occurred while the commission was in the midst of conducting its investigation.
In a 2002 speech to a Long Island business group, Bill Clinton detailed a 1996 offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition. The speech was recorded by NewsMax.com as well as by the Long Island association that hosted the event.
In 2004 the former president admitted on CNN that he once publicly confessed to turning down an offer to have bin Laden arrested prior to the 9/11 attacks. But in true Clintonesque fashion, he unabashedly asserted that his admission was "not accurate."
"What I said there was wrong, what I said was in error," Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
"Path" highlights the pivotal moment when the CIA and Northern Alliance had bin Laden surrounded and sought the necessary approval from the Clinton administration to go in and arrest the al-Qaida leader. The administration's refusal to authorize bin Laden's capture was apparently for political reasons.
Ostensibly, the 9/11 Commission was formed to determine how such an attack could have happened to our nation.
I believe that both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were necessary. Maybe they could have been explained differently, or particularly Iraq, maybe we could have handled it somewhat differently. But the reality is, the terrorist enemy that we face is multi-faceted, and loosely organized. We're not facing just one organization. Their organizational structure is Islamic fanaticism, or however you want to describe it. There are a lot of ways you can describe it. But it's not as if we're facing just one organization, or one country. And it reminds me...when I sort of analogize it to my prosecutorial days, it reminds me of dealing with the mafia. In New York, we were dealing with five different families. If all you did was eliminate one of those families, all you were accomplishing is making the other four families stronger. So the way you have to deal with terrorism is, you've got to eliminate all the pillars of support as best you can, which means Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda in Afghanistan. You've got...you had to deal with Qadafi. Luckily, he stepped down. We have to deal eventually with Iran and Syria, and places that like that support terrorism.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Next week, America will mark the fifth anniversary of September the 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. As this day approaches, it brings with it a flood of painful memories. We remember the horror of watching planes fly into the World Trade Center, and seeing the towers collapse before our eyes. We remember the sight of the Pentagon, broken and in flames. We remember the rescue workers who rushed into burning buildings to save lives, knowing they might never emerge again. We remember the brave passengers who charged the cockpit of their hijacked plane, and stopped the terrorists from reaching their target and killing more innocent civilians. We remember the cold brutality of the enemy who inflicted this harm on our country -- an enemy whose leader, Osama bin Laden, declared the massacre of nearly 3,000 people that day -- I quote -- "an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any in humankind before them."
In five years since our nation was attacked, al Qaeda and terrorists it has inspired have continued to attack across the world. They've killed the innocent in Europe and Africa and the Middle East, in Central Asia and the Far East, and beyond. Most recently, they attempted to strike again in the most ambitious plot since the attacks of September the 11th -- a plan to blow up passenger planes headed for America over the Atlantic Ocean.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Irwin, 44, was killed almost instantly when the stingray stabbed him in the heart with its poisonous 20cm barb as he snorkelled off Port Douglas, in north Queensland, yesterday morning.
His American-born wife, Terri, was trekking in Tasmania's Cradle Mountain and Lake St Clair National Park when the news broke of her husband's death and was last night being raced back to Queensland with her two children Bindi, 8, and Bob, 2.
"The footage shows him swimming in the water, the ray stopped and turned and that was it," said boatowner Peter West, who viewed the footage afterwards.
"There was no blood in the water, it was not that obvious ... something happened with this animal that made it rear and he was at the wrong position at the wrong time and if it hit him anywhere else we would not be talking about a fatality."
Irwin was shooting a documentary on dangerous marine life, in shallow water at Bat Reef, about 32 nautical-miles offshore, at about 11am (AEST).
Sunday, September 03, 2006
HT from LGF and DailyKos here:
This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya,
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Charles at LGF is reacting to the AP calling Adam Gadham as an Activist! Last time I looked at the FBI wanted poster his is wanted for terrorist activities. Not an Activist at all!
Adam Yahiye Gadahn is being sought in connection with possible terrorist threats against the United States. Although the FBI has no information indicating this individual is connected to any specific terrorist activities, the FBI would like to locate and question this person.
Friday, September 01, 2006
A famous politician speaking to Matt Lauer on the Today Show once said of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, "the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy." She was wrong about that one. DNA proved that the "great story" there really was about a President who was reckless enough to have an affair with an intern in the Oval Office and then use his power to orchestrate a coverup. She did have a point, though. Sometimes the "great story" isn't the one the media is telling, Sometimes it is just as interesting to find out how a story, especially one revealed to be incorrect in so many ways, came to be believed by so many journalists and so widely reported in the first place.
Hillary could have divorced Bill too. By her claiming it was a right-wing conspiracy the NOW people and women's lib movement gave Bill Clinton a pass. After the Lewinsky afair, I gave up on the women's movement. Women's lib did not prepare me to raise a family or get me a better job. I had to learn it on my own. Now we have 'Code Pink' out there protesting our troops as they are bussed to Walter Reed. Hillary whould have done a fine job getting rid of Bill. Then I would have thought of her as a role model. Not!
HT Lorie Byrd (NEVERMIND!)
"For the record: it is MORAL to live up to one's commitments; it is IMMORAL to abandon them just because living up to them proves more difficult than originally envisioned.
"It is MORAL to strive to help others live in freedom; it is IMMORAL to turn your back on those in need.
"It is MORAL to recognize a difference between those who use force to defend themselves, and those who use force for conquest; it is IMMORAL not to recognize that difference.
"It is MORAL to recognize that when our side kills an innocent civilian, it is an accident and a tragedy, but when terrorists in Iraq or Lebanon kill an innocent civilian, it is a mission accomplished; it is IMMORAL not to recognize that difference.
HT Diana Irey for Congress
Right wing talk-radio pundit Rush Limbaugh also ran with the story, expressing his outrage to as many as 12 million listeners on more than 500 radio affiliates.
"Sicko," Limbaugh said in describing the film's director, Gabriel Range. Limbaugh asked, "isn't it a crime" to talk about killing a president?
The White House declined to comment, saying it would not dignify the movie with a response.
In a release, director Range said, "We're thrilled to be screening the film at Toronto. It's a striking premise which may be seen as highly controversial. But it's a serious film which I hope will open up the debate on where current U.S. foreign and domestic policies are taking us."
Limbaugh claimed the filmmaker's sole intention is to move forward the anti-Bush agenda, and he questioned the morals and integrity of anybody who would sanction such work.
"It's clearly a new age," Limbaugh said.