Extreme Left Nutjobs on Zarqawi’s death
It seems that the nutjobs on the Left just can’t handle good news, or is it perhaps that good news for the Iraqis and America is bad news for them? Here’s a sample of reactions from some Democrat nutjobs and what’s been percolating around the internet from the seedier side of liberalism:
From the Washington Times:
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
“This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer” for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. “Iraq is still a mess — get out.”
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of “a growing anti-American insurgency” and that it’s time to get out. “We’re there for all the wrong reasons,” Mr. Kucinich said…
And of course there are the comments from the Kossacks. Here’s a snapshot via NRO:
“Bush’s idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?”
“Why is he dead again just now? I wonder if Karl’s getting indicted tomorrow…”
“Those pics of Abu Z look like they just thawed him out just in time for the elections.”
“Zarqawi was quite probably a psy ops job in the first place, so what does that make his “death”? …Keep your eyes on the prize….Haditha.”
“Just in time to hide the fact they’re trying to cut the estate tax for the uber wealthy”
“Yes the timing of Zarqawi’s death does seem too good for Bush to be true. It reeks of distraction politics. “
Democrats.com at 5:46 AM this morning reacting to the news of Zarqawi’s death:
We never know whether these announcements are true or not, but true or not this is a great opportunity for Democrats. We can now insist that we declare victory in Iraq and bring our troops home.
That last line was parroted by Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in her news conference today.
“Gawd! Please, no disrespect - but this is only ‘a tool’ that is used by the BushBotBorg to pick-up morale. It sort of equates to 1984 Announcements that our ‘chocolate rations’ will be upped for the next month. Translation: He’s a fictitious character.”
“It’s almost an ‘open joke’ among the military and civilians who know how PsyOps operate, and the History, that Zarqowi is merely a ‘Pentagon creation.’ And oh, don’t we need some good news now? It’s so predictable I could write the OP Orders. It’s all bullshit LIES paraded around for PR exploitation. We almost need wings to rise above it.”
“I couldn’t agree more with your psyops assessment of the situation. I never believed in this pat story of AL Qaeda in Iraq. It set off my bullshit meter right from the get go. This won’t help Bush as much as Rove would like. It is just a desperate stunt in an attempt to prop up Bush’s poll numbers and boost the popularity his failed war by feigning the killing of one of the psyop program’s main character. But by next week they’ll have thought up another one to take his place. This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. And what better way to shut down the story of Bush’s bisexuality that were picking up a ‘head’ of steam? I’m sure Jeff Gannon is thrilled about this latest development.”
“That’s it, he has doubles! Saddam does it, why can’t this guy? I wonder how many Osamas there are and why * hasn’t started killing them yet.”
“Do we even know if this guy ever existed? And if he did, who is he and how would we know? And even if he is who they say he is, so what? We’ll have 200 threads on this while BushCo keeps stealing us blind, pissing off the world and rigging the next election. Meanwhile, if there is an al Qaida, they’ll be laughing their asses off and picking a new guy to hold the key bunch. What changes — besides a new rallying cry for all those new guys we’ve enraged?”
“Ahhhh, the latest attempt to rally the Stock Market. Well, they had to try SOMETHING. Maybe Bin Laden is vacationing in Crawford and wasn’t available. Or maybe they are saving him for the Election and Christmas Rally.”
“What fingerprints? Who got the original ones? Where’s the proof?”
“OMG! Anyone just see the NEW video from Iraq showing celebrations??? *SO* staged!! CNN just showed some clips. So fake.”
“Al-Zarqawi has as much to do with al-Queda as those dumbfucks that were picked up in Canada last week. GEORGE BUSH has more guilt regarding 9/11 than al-Zarqawi. Stop watching Fox ‘News’.”
“I find it even more interesting that this comes on the heels of Haditha. Just as the American public begins to look into Haditha, this happens. I’m going to be interested as to how Bush’s approval rating changes, as well as how long we’ve known where this guy was. I’d like to think that it was just a coincidence, but it would be valuable to know all the facts.”
“The so called ’special operations’ dropped a fucking bomb from thousands of feet up. They never saw the INNOCENTS who died with al Zarqawi. There’s nothing brave about dropping bombs from planes especially when the insurgency has NO Air Force.”
“Oh no. The Haditha shit’s hittin’ the fan so fast they’re pulling out the trump cards. How bad do things have to get before they drag Bin Laden’s entrails out of the freezer for the big distraction?”
Matthew Yglesias from The American Prospect:
TURNING POINT! TURNING POINT! Look, it’s great that Zarqawi’s dead, and it’s certainly too bad the Bush administration chose not to kill him when they had the chance years ago, preferring to keep him alive since it was useful to bolstering the set of deceptions they used to launch a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, but let’s not kid ourselves here. Zarqawi’s importance to the tactical situation in Iraq has always been overstated, and I doubt he has any significance at all to the strategic situation.
“There is no evidence of operational links between his Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don’t expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon.”
Dr. Sanity has more reactions from extreme Leftist nutjobs.
And these people wonder just why they are not trusted with defense of the nation and keep losing elections? Oh but wait, I forgot. They “support” the troops…
71 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I love the reference to “the story of Bush’s bisexuality that was picking up steam.” Ummmm…. what story? LOL
There are a few sane Lefties left (so to speak), and Christopher Hitchens’ piece is not to be missed: http://www.slate.com/id/2143305/nav/tap1/
Comment by Calarato — June 8, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - June 8, 2006
You bitch about the media opting to spend more time on other than Zarkawi, and yet you spend at least 4x as much space here bitching about the media than actually celebrating the death of the guy.
Comment by God of Biscuits — June 8, 2006 @ 9:36 pm - June 8, 2006
I agree with everything you’ve posted here, AverageGayJoe. It’s no surprise how sick the leftist bloggers are. They are truly anti-American.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 8, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - June 8, 2006
GoB, now there’s an insight brimming with context and savvy… from a guy who thinks Hillary Clinton AND Al Gore would be a winning, uber-fab ticket for the Democrats.
LOL. GoB, you aren’t here much… but when you are, you’re priceless… no, that’s valueless.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 8, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - June 8, 2006
much as I hate Pelosi(and there’re few politicians that I hate more), I think you may be misrepresenting the extent of Pelosi’s statement, found on this website. Yes she did echo the statement in a manner, but there was a significantly more balanced essence in what she said.
She didn’t ACTUALLY say that it is now the day of victory and we can bring the troops home.
Comment by Froyd — June 8, 2006 @ 10:17 pm - June 8, 2006
Froyd: That’s her released written statement. I’m talking about her comments during her press conference which was carried on C-SPAN Radio this afternoon.
Charbax: I love how you put terrorists in quotation marks. Thanks for adding to the list of wacky statements by leftist nutjobs!
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 8, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - June 8, 2006
Calarato: This is something which has floating around the internet by leftist nutjobs. Here’s a link from DU on this: http://bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com/
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 8, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - June 8, 2006
Charbax: Please, do continue. You make my point quite nicely…
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 8, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - June 8, 2006
Are terrorists only those who kill innocent Christians?
Well according to the MSM those who kill Muslims are just “insurgents” and “militants”. Please do continue, I find you to be amusing…
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 8, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - June 8, 2006
First of all, citing random comments from random commenters is kind of pathetic. As to the rest, where are the nutjob statements? I’m looking for them but can’t find any.
Can someone help me?
Comment by Joe — June 8, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - June 8, 2006
The Democrats must be insane, as they claim Zarqawi death is just a stunt….
I don’t know how else to say it. They are nuts. Looney. Idiots.
Today it was announced one of the most evil people in the world was killed in Iraq, and all some on he left can do is fire up the conspiracy and spin machines to se…
Trackback by Leaning Straight Up — June 9, 2006 @ 12:35 am - June 9, 2006
Ah, ok…sorry about that, I misread your statement.
Comment by Froyd — June 9, 2006 @ 12:38 am - June 9, 2006
Let me understand this. Zarqawi’s death now is supposed to be a significant accomplishment in the Bush malAdministration’s War on Terra, but, it appears to be irrelevant–at least to Bush malAdministration apologists–that the Bush malAdministration could have killed him several years ago when he was holed up in the northern-Iraq no-fly zone that was controlled by Kurds and maintained by the American military. And that was before the Bush malAdministration’s attack on Iraq. There seems to be a disconnect here. If Zarqawi, himself was that important to the War on Terra, why didn’t the Bush malAdministration take him out at their earliest opportunity? They supposedly knew where he was, and they supposedly had him in their sights. Somehow, their failure to do so doesn’t quite compute. Maybe the Bush malAdministration really didn’t believe that Zarqawi, himself, was not as important as the Bush malAdministration might now want you to believe. So, why the jubilation now?
I suppose that we will see in the next few weeks and months whether Zarqawi’s death will have a significant effect in regards violence in Iraq. It’s doubtful that it will. One thing that interested me is that PM Malaki announced Zarqawi’s death at a press conference at which he had been expected to announce the completion of his cabinet. For a reason that mystifies me, Malaki didn’t announce the completion of his cabinet. One might seriously wonder whether the announcement regarding Zarqawi was a diversionary tactic on Malaki’s part. In other words, if you don’t have anything positive to announce, change the subject.
Two more points. Actually, three.
One, it is becoming rather evident that the government of Iraq is accommodating itself to–if not implementing–Sharia law. That is quite evident from the rather significant limitations–written or unwritten–on rights of women and gay people. Thank you, Dubya.
Two, PM Malaki, the Bush malAdministration’s favorite water-carrier–despite the fact that he is a member of the rather radical Dawa party–still has not been able to fill two of the most important cabinet posts in Iraq (security and interior). He had said that he would be able to do so several weeks ago. And, just what is the hold-up?
Three, and just where is Osama bin Forgotten? Shortly after 9/11, Bush himself said that he wanted Osama dead or alive. To date, there has been no indication that Bush has him either dead or alive. And, moreover, after having been asked where Osama was, Bush replied that he didn’t know, and that he didn’t think about it very much. Well, it’s obvious that Bush doesn’t think about it very much–he apparently doesn’t think about anything very much. But, for the Bush malAdministration apologists around here, I’ll salute you: I want my tax cuts, too. But your children will be paying for the resulting deficits.
BTW, I was rather amused at the citation here regarding Juan Cole. I know full well why Bush malAdministration apologists dislike Cole. His smack-down of the brain-dead Jonah Goldberg (the idiot spawn of the nutty Lucianne “Linda Tripp” Goldberg) a few months ago was hilarious.
Comment by raj — June 9, 2006 @ 1:45 am - June 9, 2006
As to the rest, where are the nutjob statements? I’m looking for them but can’t find any.
Well there’s one right now.
Questions:
If this was merely a stunt, why wasn’t his ass iced long ago?
If libs didn’t believe al-Qaeda was in Iraq, why did they swear that they were?
They actually did believe it, before they believed against it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2006 @ 1:49 am - June 9, 2006
I must’ve missed something, AGJ. Who’s “Charbox”? And you responded to some comments I can’t find.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 9, 2006 @ 2:39 am - June 9, 2006
by the way, it’s been nearly 5 years on and we still haven’t gotten the originator of the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden. Guess it’s ok if we get his agents, but gotta keep Osama at large so conservatives can keep the nation in a grip of fear on future attacks….
Comment by Kevin — June 9, 2006 @ 5:36 am - June 9, 2006
This is really disgraceful. To point to an article in the famously anti-Democrat Moonie Times and assorted handpicked blog comments (!) as proof that “the left” isn’t delighted to see Zarqawi dead — well, it’s kind of absurd. Many of all political stripes are saying this is no guaranteed turning point - even the White House is now downplaying this, as no one expects to see any sudden drop-off in carnage in Iraq. This is an unworthy misrepresentation of a broad swath of Americans - liberals - who nearly all love their country and want what is best for it. Where are the liberal politicians, spokespeople or influencers expressing anything but delight in Zarqawi’s demise? There aren’t any. (And no, Nick Berg’s father is no influencer. He has made a fool of himself this week.) Sure, many are raising the totally valid question, why didn’t we take the monster out earlier when we had ample opportunity? As a self-described patriot, you should be asking the same question, as our failure to take what at the time ws a simple step could have saved many American lives.
Oh, and I’m a gay patriot, too.
Comment by richard — June 9, 2006 @ 6:11 am - June 9, 2006
This moment in the WOT and Iraq brings into prefect relief the fundamental difference between the Right and Left in America.
The Right is cautious, measured, pausing to reflect seriously on what this execution means for Iraq’s freedom loving people. Bush: it’s important we got him; recruiting will be harded for al Qaeda; violence isn’t over as the mid-level terrorists will try to demonstrate they can replace Zarqawi; we have more work to do; the military is serving us well.
And the Left hazarding questions like: Why didn’t we catch these terrorists ALIVE; we could have learned more? Why didn’t the military release their plans before the strike so the world press could position reporters in the field to document the exercise? How many terrorists had to be imprisioned and tortured to get just this single, less-than-important 2nd stringer wanna be terrorist whose only crime was coming from a broken family which was made to endure America’s cultural taunts? How many phone calls were illegally tapped to find Zarqawi?
Never has the Left been more adept at adopting the strategy of “Just Do No”, wait for news cycle, repeat.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 9, 2006 @ 9:39 am - June 9, 2006
Well remember Matt - the Battle of Midway (1942) accomplished nothing because the violence continued (right?) and it didn’t bring any troops home and Admiral Nagumo was still at large.
And Mozart’s _Marriage of Figaro_ may have been a great achievement in the 3-4 hour opera format - but, pffffffft, why didn’t he make it 5? The hack.
Comment by Calarato — June 9, 2006 @ 10:22 am - June 9, 2006
#17 - richard, what’s disgraceful is your inability to answer the 23 real-life quotes provided by AGJ or his larger point… and, in consequence of that, your artless attempt to change the subject to your dislike of the people whom AGJ re-printed the quotes from.
“Where are the liberal politicians, spokespeople or influencers expressing anything but delight in Zarqawi’s demise? There aren’t any.”
Are you blind? AGJ just pointed you to a bunch! Rep. Kucinich, Rep. Pete Stark, Sen. Kent Conrad (elsewhere in the WT article), Democrats.com and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (you know her?), _The American Prospect_ magazine, and Professor Juan Cole.
Comment by Calarato — June 9, 2006 @ 10:38 am - June 9, 2006
Richard (#17) - I hate to tell you, but most mainstream Americans do not believe that American Liberals DO love this nation any longer. For decades now liberal causes have been trying to undo the fabric of this nation, including castigating its military as the source of evil on earth.
You have a lot of work to do with your fellow Libs if you think they still love and respect this nation. That idea is about as dead as small government these days.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 9, 2006 @ 11:01 am - June 9, 2006
haha the right wingers are celebrating “their” victory. meanwhile, none of you have even mentioned the word iraq since the immigration debate started. liberals are the only ones who even CARE about what goes on in Iraq.
Bush could have got zarqawi before. getting him now means nothing. in fact, those deaths are on his hands.
Comment by lester — June 9, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - June 9, 2006
lester, I can only describe your #22 comment as psychotic.
You wrote your second sentence on a blog that discusses Iraq EVERY WEEK, and sometimes almost every day.
And what most left-liberals care about in Iraq, is: making sure America loses. Making sure it’s viewed as “another Vietnam” and only that.
Comment by Calarato — June 9, 2006 @ 1:36 pm - June 9, 2006
Bruce, in number 21, I would like to encourage you to use “leftist” or “left-winger” instead of “liberal”. There are some very honorable people in politics who are liberal and love this country as deeply as you and I. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, for examples, are liberals but their liberalism bears no resemblence whatsoever to the politics of far-left-wingers like DailyKos, Michael Moore, Americablog, Cindy Sheehan, et al.
Definitions don’t mean much anymore. Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey and Henry “Scoop” Jackson were liberals who loved America to the core of their souls but the likes of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan have almost made “liberal” a dirty word. Barry Goldwater was a great conservative but, at least in my opinion, the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson have almost made “conservative” a dirty word. People like them should be called far-right wingers.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 9, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - June 9, 2006
michael moore? the guy who made a movie questioning the iraq war over 2 years a go? a war 59% of americans feel was a mistake? more like a visionary than a far left bomb thrower.
and Iraq has been avoided by the right wing media by and large since the immigratin debate started. You can’t just come back to it.
Comment by lester — June 9, 2006 @ 1:47 pm - June 9, 2006
and I’ll bet the one bad terrorist incident in iraq will send the Fox crowd right back to the immigration debate.
Comment by lester — June 9, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - June 9, 2006
I know what the tone of thsi discussion sounds like - arguing with a teenager busted as he is getting home at 3 in the morning - all desperate evasions and excuses.
Exhibit A - Changing the Subject:
“Three, and just where is Osama bin Forgotten? Shortly after 9/11, Bush himself said that he wanted Osama dead or alive. To date, there has been no indication that Bush has him either dead or alive.”
Osama bin Dead-a-long-time-now is going to be missing for a long time unless someone stumbles across a bone with enough DNA left to type.
Exhibit B - Simple Misrepresentation:
“meanwhile, none of you have even mentioned the word iraq since the immigration debate started. ”
Right-wing and centrist blogs have been going on and on about Haditha, torture, al Maliki and the two new ministers, yada yada, for the last few weeks. If the contention is that the immigration noise is a manipulation by Rove, I dare this prat to say that in front of the Latino organizations that staged all the demonstrations. I would love to see how much they leave of anyone who calls them Rove’s tools.
Comment by Jim — June 9, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - June 9, 2006
you’re in denial. Iraq has been jettisoned in favor of immigration. in fact, it’s the new “Iraq”
Comment by lester — June 9, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - June 9, 2006
Hey lester, snipet, snipet, snipets.
You might want to stick to commenting at Daily Kos and BlogActive… that’s where “informed opinions” pass for reading just the headlines. That and in the mind of our resident “Germany” expert, raj baby.
Calarato… lol, yeah –that whole Mozart thing has just too many notes. Too many notes.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 9, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - June 9, 2006
lester, I think you need some lithium.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 9, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - June 9, 2006
matt - you forgot to make a point
peter - so did you
do you guys understand the concept with these types of boards?
Comment by lester — June 9, 2006 @ 6:30 pm - June 9, 2006
lester, who died and made you GP and GPW’s board Nazi? Frankly, the only reason I posted was because I knew that you’d be making some kind of libtard remark and was eager to see how dumb it would be.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 9, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - June 9, 2006
And speaking of left-wing nutjobs…
I wonder if our usual ragtag bunch of anti-American commentators (raj, ian, lester et al) are all upset that Hillary Clinton BOYCOTTED the YearlyKos convention. I guess that shows what she thinks of her base, doesn’t it??
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 9, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - June 9, 2006
lester, no… I didn’t forget to make “a point” –you forgot to comprehend.
here’s the coloring book level drill for you lester: your “analysis” is less informed opinion and more akin to the nonsense of commenters over at DKos and BlogActive –short snide remarks intended to inflame, not inform.
point made. or more approriately: point, set, match, game. stick to the DailyKos, Democrat Undergorund or elsewhere on the blogsphere where informed debate is reduced to spitting out the headlines, lester.
you and raj: headline boys 100%
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 9, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - June 9, 2006
#21 Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 9, 2006 @ 11:01 am - June 9, 2006
Oh, Bruce, give me a break. The reason that “most mainstream Americans do not believe that American Liberals DO love this nation any longer” is because of a relentless advertising campaign by American conservatives. Apparently, American conservatives read Gustave Gilbert’s Nuremberg Diaries whereas American liberals didn’t.
Let’s get something–um–straight. American liberals supported the US efforts during the cold war. About the only thing that they did not support–but which American conservatives did support–was the violation of constitutional rights. That, of course, led to the FISA act. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that you and other conservatives like you, would support violating constitutional rights–apparently in support of some “higher good.” But, if that’s the case, why bother having a constitution to begin with? It is not a rhetorical question: fairly clear that your pResident isn’t bothering with the constitution, either. Are you pleased? I would suspect that “classical conservatives” would suggest that you should not be, but there are (apparently) no “classical conservatives” in the US.
Regarding including castigating its military as the source of evil on earth… it’s unfortunate that self-described conservatives apparently know little of history. One thing that you might want to consider (although I’m sure that you won’t) is that the US–not just the military, but also the “intelligence” agencies” such as the CIA–has, for the last 60+ years (actually far longer) run around the world like a bull in a china shop. I’d start with the US adventure in the Philippines in the early 20th century (after the Spanish-American War–a made-up war if there ever was one), the US adventures in Central America in the mid 20th century on United Fruit’s behalf, the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, the rather significant endeavor in Indochina after the French loss at Dien Bien Phu, the incursion in Beirut in the early 1980s leading to the deaths of some 244 American solders, the incursion in Grenada in the same time frame to stop the building of an airstrip there (!).
I could go on and on, but the point should be clear.
The problem that you have with your point is that there are probably very few people, even in the US, who denigrate the US military for doing what the US politicians tell them to do. Oh, I’m sure that there were some people during the Vietnam War era, who denigrated the American solders for serving in Vietnam. That was, indeed, cruel–they were often draftees. The people who should have been denigrated were the politicians who approved and sent them to do what they did.
Getting back to the point, what is amazing is that politicians have apparently been able to divert attention from themselves, who are and were the guilty parties who actually sent the US military to do their bidding. As Herman Goering presciently opined in the Nuremberg Diaries, it’s easy for the politicians to drag their people to war. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm I’d suggest that you scroll to the bottom, but I’m sure that you won’t.
Comment by raj — June 10, 2006 @ 2:35 am - June 10, 2006
#33 Peter Hughes — June 9, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - June 9, 2006
Oh, Peter, put on your dunce cap again.
Are you really suggesting that I am supposed to give a tinkers’ damn about a snake-oil saleswoman (i.e. Hilary, and y’all Southerners would know what that “snake-oil salesperson” refers to) has done in regards a convention held by a Democratic apparatchik who supported an anti-equal-rights-for-gay-people from South Dakota merely because she was a Democrat?
Get real.
Comment by raj — June 10, 2006 @ 4:16 am - June 10, 2006
#27 Jim — June 9, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - June 9, 2006
Osama bin Dead-a-long-time-now is going to be missing for a long time unless someone stumbles across a bone with enough DNA left to type.
Osama bin Forgotten may be dead. On the other hand, he might not be. It would be interesting to see your evidence for your assertion that he is dead. Has your Cheerleader-in-Chief Geo W. Bush opined on the matter, between his golf swings and clearing his brush on his faux ranch.
There have been more than a few pieces of evidence that your assertion is incorrect, such as the subsequently-issued audio tapes which, apparently, had been authenticated by the US “intelligence” agencies.
If you want to believe that Osama bin Forgotten is dead, it’s no skin off of my nose. Whether or not Osama, himself, is dead, doesn’t suggest that Islamist attacks will subside–which is one point that Bushie apologists appear to want to ignore.
On the other hand, you have almost successfully avoided my point. Go back and re-read the comment, and don’t “change the subject” yourself, while accusing me of changing the subject.
Comment by raj — June 10, 2006 @ 4:20 am - June 10, 2006
On the general subject of the post, I’m amused that the poster has linked to and cited material from a self-described psychologist. AFAIC, psychology is one of the soft sciences that should reasonably be ignored. In my experience at university, people transferred into psychology because they couldn’t hack it in engineering, mathematics, the hard sciences, or whatever. Actually, some of them transferred into “business,” too. I suppose that psychology might someday become a real science, but it has a long row to hoe before it becomes one.
Comment by raj — June 10, 2006 @ 4:21 am - June 10, 2006
#7 by John (AGJ) — June 8, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - June 8, 2006
This (regarding Dubya’s possible bisexuality) is something which has floating around the internet by leftist nutjobs.
Actually, I first saw things like what you linked to prior to the 2000 election on a web site that was populated primarily by right wing-nuts–they were opposing his election as president because of his presumed bisexual activity when he was at Yale.
Apparently, at least some right wing-nuts didn’t like Bushie, either.
Comment by raj — June 10, 2006 @ 4:21 am - June 10, 2006
#18 by Michigan-Matt — June 9, 2006 @ 9:39 am - June 9, 2006
Why didn’t we catch these terrorists ALIVE; we could have learned more?
Um, the rest of your post is silly beyond belief, but the quoted portion raises an interesting question. Why didn’t the US military even try to capture Zarqawi and his compatriots alive? The US military apparently knew where he was–heck, they knew where he was before the war on Iraq started–and probably could have easily apprehended him alive. This presumes, of course, that the US “intelligence” agencies knew where the Weapons of Mass Distraction were–but, of course, they didn’t.
I can conceive of at least four reasons why the US military might not have wanted to apprehend him alive.
(i) The US military believed that he didn’t have any significant information that they could have had from other sources. Which would probably have led to the inference that he wasn’t as important as the US gov’t suggested that he was (can’t have that!).
(ii) The US military might have been concerned that, if they tried to take Zarqawi alive, some from the US military might have been killed. (Not unreasonable.)
(iii) The US gov’t wanted a dead body, regardless of whether the dead body was, actually, a threat in the War on Terra. (In other words, for public relations purposes). And
(iv) The US (note, I did not say “US miltary”) was concerned that, if Zarqawi had been captured alive, he might have been able to give evidence regarding US collusion with him in regards Iraq.
Interesting to speculate. Let’s see–particularly regarding the last. The US got rid of their former ally Saddam and their former ally Noriega. (There are more examples.) And the Bushies refused to take out Zarqawi in the Northern Iraq no-fly zone when they had the rather easy opportunity to do so. It doesn’t strain credulity to believe that there was some relationship between the US and Zarqawi that will probably never be made public. Maybe. I have no evidence, and, quite frankly, since Zarqawi has been “taken out” we’ll probably never have any. Convenient, isn’t it?
Just speculating.
I tend to believe that some combination of (i) through (iii) is the most likely possibility. I tend to discount (iv) largely because I tend to doubt that the US “intelligence” agencies are “intelligent” enough to pull something like that off with a petty criminal.
Comment by raj — June 10, 2006 @ 4:24 am - June 10, 2006
Let me understand this. Zarqawi’s death now is supposed to be a significant accomplishment in the Bush malAdministration’s War on Terra,
Are you saying it’s not? No one is claiming that the death of Zarqawi wraps up operations in Iraq or ends the GWOT, but it is a good accomplishment.
but, it appears to be irrelevant–at least to Bush malAdministration apologists–that the Bush malAdministration could have killed him several years ago when he was holed up in the northern-Iraq no-fly zone that was controlled by Kurds and maintained by the American military. And that was before the Bush malAdministration’s attack on Iraq.
You mean like how Clinton could have had Osama handed over to him at least twice before 9/11? Even assuming everything you say here is accurate, it is no surprise that mistakes are made in times of war or that persons who later rise in infamy are overlooked beforehand. Only a complete idiot thinks that war is ever conducted perfectly as if from a written script.
There seems to be a disconnect here. If Zarqawi, himself was that important to the War on Terra, why didn’t the Bush malAdministration take him out at their earliest opportunity?
Which assinine wacko theory do you subscribe to in response to this, eh?
So, why the jubilation now?
You’re kidding, right?
I suppose that we will see in the next few weeks and months whether Zarqawi’s death will have a significant effect in regards violence in Iraq. It’s doubtful that it will.
Initially you are probably right, which is precisely what everyone else including the Bush Administration is saying. McQ over at QandO pointed out 4 very good reasons why his death is important:
1. “[W]hile based in Iraq, Zarqawi represented a global terrorist network which had already attacked the US multiple times. Getting him was important regardless of the relatively small role al Qaeda played in the Iraqi violence.”
2. “[I]t demonstrated our persistence. You can run, but you can’t hide for ever. We will continue to hunt you down and eventually we will kill you.”
3. “[I]t points to tremendous progress in at least our tactical intelligence gathering capability.”
4. “[I]t removes a charismatic icon from the field. Zarqawi was feted in soap operas, pop music and other venues in the Arab world. Many had come to believe he was invulnerable. His dead face on Al Jazera ends that bit of nonsense forever and again serves a very visible and useful warning to those who are thinking about joining the extremists he represented. Psychologically, it is an very important victory in the GWoT.”
One thing that interested me is that PM Malaki announced Zarqawi’s death at a press conference at which he had been expected to announce the completion of his cabinet. For a reason that mystifies me, Malaki didn’t announce the completion of his cabinet. One might seriously wonder whether the announcement regarding Zarqawi was a diversionary tactic on Malaki’s part. In other words, if you don’t have anything positive to announce, change the subject.
What an idiot. Gee, the death of one of the biggest murderers in Iraq isn’t an event which briefly overshadows everything else? al-Maliki did in fact have his cabinet approved by the Iraqi parliament, except for 3 key ministries, back in May. As for the those ministires, as the Washington Post reported:
The selection of an interior minister, a defense minister and a national security adviser gives Iraq a complete government for the first time since elections in December 2005 and it provides a key opportunity to promote political reconciliation between members of the country’s Sunni Muslim minority and the Shiite-dominated government.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki presented the names to parliament a few minutes after announcing the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who has claimed responsibility for hundreds of bombings, beheadings and kidnappings since the U.S. invasion.
Interestingly enough, the defense ministry went to a Sunni.
Two more points. Actually, three.
Meaning you just don’t know when to shut up but instead keep babbling on like a bitter and ignorant fool.
One, it is becoming rather evident that the government of Iraq is accommodating itself to–if not implementing–Sharia law. That is quite evident from the rather significant limitations–written or unwritten–on rights of women and gay people. Thank you, Dubya.
Bush has nothing to do with it, or are you saying we should impose our will on Iraq? No one ever said that Iraq will have western-style liberal democracy, such would be impossible without it evolving from the Iraqi’s own desires.
Two, PM Malaki, the Bush malAdministration’s favorite water-carrier–despite the fact that he is a member of the rather radical Dawa party–still has not been able to fill two of the most important cabinet posts in Iraq (security and interior). He had said that he would be able to do so several weeks ago. And, just what is the hold-up?
He filled both, along with defense, just minutes after announcing the death of Zarqawi you twit.
Three, and just where is Osama bin Forgotten? Shortly after 9/11, Bush himself said that he wanted Osama dead or alive. To date, there has been no indication that Bush has him either dead or alive. And, moreover, after having been asked where Osama was, Bush replied that he didn’t know, and that he didn’t think about it very much. Well, it’s obvious that Bush doesn’t think about it very much–he apparently doesn’t think about anything very much.
It will be amusing to see what tripe you come up with when Osama is smoked.
But, for the Bush malAdministration apologists around here, I’ll salute you: I want my tax cuts, too. But your children will be paying for the resulting deficits.
Name for me a president in the over 200 years of our history whom you agree with 100% of everything they said or did while in office, whom is above any legitimate criticism. There hasn’t been a single one nor will there ever be. Bush is wrong about his spending orgy but this doesn’t take away from the fact that he has been largely right in fighting terrorism. Btw, “largely right” in no way means he has been correct all the time or is above criticism for mistakes he has made. Overall, I’d rather have Bush in charge of conducting the GWOT even with his screw-ups than Gore or Kerry.
BTW, I was rather amused at the citation here regarding Juan Cole. I know full well why Bush malAdministration apologists dislike Cole. His smack-down of the brain-dead Jonah Goldberg (the idiot spawn of the nutty Lucianne “Linda Tripp” Goldberg) a few months ago was hilarious.
I have no idea what the exchange is you are referring to, nor do I even care. If Cole “smacked down” Goldberg, bully for him. It doesn’t change the fact that he made a complete ass of himself in responding to the death of Zarqawi.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 10:48 am - June 10, 2006
I must’ve missed something, AGJ. Who’s “Charbox”? And you responded to some comments I can’t find.
Bruce or Dan must have taken offense to his comments and deleted them I guess. They were here when I responded, but seem to be gone now.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 10:52 am - June 10, 2006
by the way, it’s been nearly 5 years on and we still haven’t gotten the originator of the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden. Guess it’s ok if we get his agents, but gotta keep Osama at large so conservatives can keep the nation in a grip of fear on future attacks….
Yeah, you’ve figured it all out. Damn. Now we’ll have to send the GOP Gestapo out to get you. Moron.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 10:53 am - June 10, 2006
This is really disgraceful. To point to an article in the famously anti-Democrat Moonie Times and assorted handpicked blog comments (!) as proof that “the left” isn’t delighted to see Zarqawi dead — well, it’s kind of absurd.
1. Interesting that you call the Washington Times, “Moonie Times”, yet I’ll just bet you rely completely upon anti-Republican and anti-conservative media outlets like the New York Slime. The irony here is that each and every one of the lib outlets you rely upon are all part of that ‘evil’ capitalist system, owned lock, stock and barrel by conglomerates liberals usually scream about.
2. There is a reason I chose to create a new tagline of “leftist nutjobs” rather than use “liberals”. Besides the fact that there are liberal hawks like Hitchens and Lieberman, I assume there are liberals opposed to the war in Iraq at least who are not nutjobs. There is a difference you know and both parties have their share of nutjobs. I posted about an extreme right nutjob the other day if you’ll recall.
Many of all political stripes are saying this is no guaranteed turning point - even the White House is now downplaying this, as no one expects to see any sudden drop-off in carnage in Iraq.
Yep, which is not someting I deny nor is it relevant to the post.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:00 am - June 10, 2006
Are you blind? AGJ just pointed you to a bunch! Rep. Kucinich, Rep. Pete Stark, Sen. Kent Conrad (elsewhere in the WT article), Democrats.com and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (you know her?), _The American Prospect_ magazine, and Professor Juan Cole.
In fairness, I deliberately left the part about Conrad out because what was quoted while I could be critical with I didn’t find it to be of the “nutjob” variety. Though I mentioned Pelosi, I was not saying her comments were of the “nutjob” variety. Defeatist perhaps.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:04 am - June 10, 2006
Bruce, in number 21, I would like to encourage you to use “leftist” or “left-winger” instead of “liberal”. There are some very honorable people in politics who are liberal and love this country as deeply as you and I. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, for examples, are liberals but their liberalism bears no resemblence whatsoever to the politics of far-left-wingers like DailyKos, Michael Moore, Americablog, Cindy Sheehan, et al.
Thank you. This is exactly why I said “leftist nutjobs” rather than “liberals”. Of course one should read into this that I necessarily agree politically with the liberals mentioned above. I do recognize though that there is a difference between political differences and wacked-out nutjobs.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:07 am - June 10, 2006
and I’ll bet the one bad terrorist incident in iraq will send the Fox crowd right back to the immigration debate.
Are you saying that illegal immigration isn’t something that we should be discussing? You may view this cynically as a political distraction by right-wingers, but the fact of the matter is that the GOP is taking a shellacking over this. That’s hardly conducive to some Rovian-inspired plot for GOP victory. The president miscalculated badly in pushing the guest-worker program (which I agree with btw) without also including tough measures for controlling our borders. The anger from conservatives, or at least from myself, comes from the fact that he and the GOP should have done this right after 9/11 for gee, SECURITY REASONS, but failed to do so.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:12 am - June 10, 2006
Oh, Bruce, give me a break. The reason that “most mainstream Americans do not believe that American Liberals DO love this nation any longer” is because of a relentless advertising campaign by American conservatives.
While liberals have been out spreading the idea that conservatives want to steal from the poor, put blacks back in chains, gleefully watch while people die from AIDS or whatever, kick puppies for no reason other than it’s just sheer fun, and kick grandma out into the street to eat nothing but dog food. Hmm…I’m a lil’ rusty on liberal rhetoric, does that about sum it up correctly?
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:16 am - June 10, 2006
American liberals supported the US efforts during the cold war.
Some like Truman, Scoop Jackson, JFK, and others certainly. Others were Stalin apologists, sought to draw moral equivalence between the US and USSR, and undermined our efforts at every step of the way. For example, while McCarthy was in fact a rightist nutjob he ironically was correct about many of the charges he was levelling. Not all of course.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:18 am - June 10, 2006
I have no evidence, and, quite frankly, since Zarqawi has been “taken out” we’ll probably never have any. Convenient, isn’t it?
Just speculating.
Yes, and there we have it folks: nutjob.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 11:23 am - June 10, 2006
Nicely done, AGJ.
I’d also like to point out that one of raj’s usual haughty lines is how he doesn’t bother with the US press and instead reads “foreign” press.
It seems astounding that a press devoted to facts, as he claims these are, missed the fact that al-Maliki presented the picks for the vacant ministries to the Iraqi Parliament mere minutes after announcing the death of Zarqawi. But, since Raj claimed it never happened, obviously they omitted that fact — and thus stand accused of incompetency or willful oversight for propaganda purposes.
Either that or Raj is a partisan fool who refused to acknowledge the facts.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - June 10, 2006
#50: “Yes, and there we have it folks: nutjob.”
Is his speculation any nuttier than Bruce’s speculation that Hidatha may be a hoax? After all, we do know for a fact that Zarqawi was in Northern Iraq in territory controlled by the Kurds and under our no-fly zone for some time prior to the invasion of Iraq. And we know the White House at least twice nixed plans to take him and his terrorist group out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Why would that be? After all, it was known through intelligence that Zarqawi and his allies were developing plans to use poison in terrorist attacks.
Comment by Ian S — June 10, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - June 10, 2006
In #33, Pee-eeewws suggests I might be “all upset that Hillary Clinton BOYCOTTED the YearlyKos convention.”
Why would she want to attend that convention? In DailyKos straw polls, she consistently gets in the very low single digits of support as a Presidential candidate. Of course, she’d be light years ahead of any Republican contender. But she is positioning herself to the right. The problem is no one believes it and the Dem base hates her for trying. While it would be nice to imagine the elevated blood pressure her candidacy would induce in all the wingnuts, I’m afraid it just isn’t going to happen.
Kinda sorry I didn’t go to YearlyKos - it would have been fun. Maybe next year.
Comment by Ian S — June 10, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - June 10, 2006
Is his speculation any nuttier than Bruce’s speculation that Hidatha may be a hoax?
As a matter of fact, yes.
Why would that be? After all, it was known through intelligence that Zarqawi and his allies were developing plans to use poison in terrorist attacks.
Gee Tin Foil Hat One, why don’t you tell us?
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 3:04 pm - June 10, 2006
Kinda sorry I didn’t go to YearlyKos - it would have been fun. Maybe next year.
You’ll undoubtedly be right at home.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 3:05 pm - June 10, 2006
#45 - I disagreed for the following reason.
As you’d know, the Zarqawi feat wasn’t just him; also his staff, plus 17 simultaneous raids on other Al Qaeda Mesopotamia cells and 39 more the next day. Huge. Doesn’t shut down the Baathist / Saddam Diehard part of the insurgency - but, is a body blow to the al Qaeda portion of it.
Meanwhile, Osama is sitting in a cave in tribal Pakistan (if he is even alive still) doing nothing.
And what is Sen. Conrad’s reaction? To put down the whole effort by saying, in effect (or in political-speak), “Oh but they should have gotten Osama”.
That’s nutjob territory, sorry man. I mean, it’s what, oh I don’t know, raj would say?
Comment by Calarato — June 10, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - June 10, 2006
#52 - Note that Ian relies on an article telling him the following:
“In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.”
Because that is exactly one of the times “the White House nixed plans to take Zarqawi out” that Ian wants people to feel bad about here.
So Ian - You would appear to be finally conceding that:
(1) Saddam did have al Qaeda in Northern Iraq, pre-Coalition invasion; and
(2) they had access to chemical WMD.
Or at the very least, admitting that that’s WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE SAID to U.S. officials in the run-up to Coalition invasion.
Comment by Calarato — June 10, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - June 10, 2006
#57: Nice try but you left out the key point that the camp in northern Iraq where they were doing all this nasty stuff was in Kurdish territory and protected by our imposed no-fly zone. It wasn’t until long after Saddam was deposed that Zarqawi joined al Qaeda and in an interesting Atlantic article http://tinyurl.com/hdrzj , it’s pretty clear that Zarqawi’s connections were not to Iraq but to Iran:
“One can only imagine how astonished al-Zarqawi must have been when Colin Powell named him as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was not even officially a part of al-Qaeda, and ever since he had left Afghanistan, his links had been not to Iraq but to Iran.
“We know Zarqawi better than he knows himself,” the high-level Jordanian intelligence official said. “And I can assure you that he never had any links to Saddam. Iran is quite a different matter. The Iranians have a policy: they want to control Iraq. And part of this policy has been to support Zarqawi, tactically but not strategically.”
So the points you tried to make are totally refuted by the facts.
Comment by Ian S — June 10, 2006 @ 5:47 pm - June 10, 2006
Ian, how you can speak of Zarqawi later “joining al Qaeda” when Ansar al-Islam (his original group in Iraq) is practically a synonym for al Qaeda and has been used as one in the European press now for at least five years, and when Zarqawi was sent to Iraq by al Qaeda in Afghanistan and came there from al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and at the invitation of Saddam as well who gave him hospital treatment, is frankly beyond me.
Here is the part where I admit that I said what I said, not only to make a point to the sane readers here about the essential hypocrisy and emptiness of your position, but for the “watch a train wreck” pleasure of seeing what distorted, hypocritical pretzel you would bend your mind into rather than ever admit a fragment of truth. And I have to say - You obliged me. Thanks
Comment by Calarato — June 10, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - June 10, 2006
And P.S. - Do further reflect upon your own allegation here that Iran, the world’s primary Shia country, would be out to slaughter the Shia of Iraq (Zarqawi’s own acknowledged target).
If it isn’t true: your position is further exposed as ridiculous and false. If it is true: then Iran is not only a major sponsor of international terrorism, but a truly monstrous regime, one we should invade next. Bye now.
Comment by Calarato — June 10, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - June 10, 2006
#59 and 60: I notice you provide no links for your claims. I quoted from the Atlantic article that was written by someone far more knowledgable about Zarqawi than you or I. Argue with the author.
Comment by Ian S — June 10, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - June 10, 2006
I quoted from the Atlantic article that was written by someone far more knowledgable about Zarqawi than you or I.
How so? Because she is a journalist for The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly along with having authored at least one book? Perhaps she is, but do you realize the Pandora’s box you are opening for your reasoning and argument?
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 10, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - June 10, 2006
#62: “do you realize the Pandora’s box you are opening for your reasoning and argument?”
What? That the Iranian regime supports terrorists? Well, Duhhh. Does that mean we should invade them? With what, pray tell? After all, Operation Yellow Elephant doesn’t seem to be doing all that well http://tinyurl.com/coz2p . Perhaps if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we’d be in a far stronger position to deal effectively with the Iranian regime.
As for Zarqawi and al Qaeda, the Atlantic article is pretty clear - when bin Laden and Zarqawi first met it was “loathing at first sight”. Nor for years would Zarqawi take an oath of allegiance to bin Laden. It wasn’t until October, 2004 - a year and a half after the US invaded Iraq - that Zarqawi finally “paid bayat to Osama bin Laden.” Thanks to Dear Leader for that alliance.
Comment by Ian S — June 11, 2006 @ 12:01 am - June 11, 2006
#61
I notice you provide no links for your claims. I quoted from the Atlantic article that was written by someone far more knowledgable about Zarqawi than you or I.
How about a quote from the dead guy
Comment by John in IL — June 11, 2006 @ 12:47 am - June 11, 2006
Typical liberals…always wanting to fight the next war never this one.
Liberals were against fighting the cold war and freeing eastern europe. Thank God for the good sense of the American people to rarely leave these folks in charge. And when they are in charge, (Carter and Clinton) they gut the military, so we are left unprepared. Do you really think if Sadamm had adhered to the surrender of Gulf War I, that liberals would be the first ones lining up to state the reasons for invading Iran right now. Come on. They always deflect attention and mouth words about being tough somewhere else.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 11, 2006 @ 12:51 am - June 11, 2006
#64: Hey, I’ve got a suggestion. Why don’t you just READ the article to which I linked. I think it will clarify things for you.
Comment by Ian S — June 11, 2006 @ 12:54 am - June 11, 2006
#66
Sorry, but I will not base an opinion solely on one article from The Atlantic quoting a “high level Jordanian intellegence official”, whoever that may be. Your argument rests on (as your quote of him suggests) that one anonymous opinion.
Comment by John in IL — June 11, 2006 @ 1:28 am - June 11, 2006
Sorry, but I will not base an opinion solely on one article from The Atlantic quoting a “high level Jordanian intellegence official”, whoever that may be. Your argument rests on (as your quote of him suggests) that one anonymous opinion.
Indeed. Ian also has overlooked what his comments do to his reasoning. Weaver: meet Hitchens.
Comment by John (AGJ) — June 11, 2006 @ 6:50 am - June 11, 2006
And again, ignorant and nauseating is smacked down with the facts and the truth. Poor guy…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 11, 2006 @ 10:27 am - June 11, 2006
#68: Both the Weaver and Hitchens articles back up my comments. For example, what I said:
“It wasn’t until long after Saddam was deposed that Zarqawi joined al Qaeda”
What Hitchens states:
“Mary Anne Weaver shows fairly convincingly that the two men did not get along… when Zarqawi sought the franchise to call his group “al-Qaida in Mesopotamia,” he was granted it with only a few admonitions.”
And just when was it granted? Why, it was just after he finally “finally paid bayat to Osama bin Laden” in October 2004. That’s long after the US invaded Iraq. Just as I said.
Comment by Ian S — June 11, 2006 @ 11:16 am - June 11, 2006
Ian S, gotta give you some credit guy…. you can go on and on living out a blindered, lie-strewn, self-enforcing world view and never, ever miss a beat on the drumskin of the Democrat Plantation.
YOU need to head up the Log Cabineers. LOL.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 11, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - June 11, 2006