 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! June 5, 2006 "A reduced op-tempo certainly hath it’s privileges"By GreyhawkSo Buck Sargent says, in explaining how he found time to write this blog entry from Iraq - a piece every bit as quotable as anything from Mark Steyn. Still, the domestic Barnes & Noblesse oblige crowd -- with their claptrappucchinos and their sophisticated taste for yellow (dog) journalism -- are hardly the world-weary isolationists they pretend to be. American interventionism did not appear particularly troubling to these citizen-skeptics during the previous decade when it pertained to solely humanitarian impulses; but add American security to the mix and suddenly their travel mugs spilleth over. Within the span of one electoral cycle any prevailing charitable impulses evaporated, leaving nothing but a naked desire for America and its military might to be knocked off its pedestal; to be sent packing from the Middle East with its tail between its legs, humiliated and discredited before an Islamic world that respects only strength and routinely mistakes kindness for weakness.While you're there be sure to watch a few of his "home movies" from Iraq (in the lower right sidebar). Posted by Greyhawk / June 5, 2006 8:36 PM | Permalink 35 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Buck Sargent's critique could easily be turned against him, as conservatives and Republicans were vehemently opposed to the NATO actions in Bosnia and used to toss around words like "quagmire" and bitch about not getting involved in nation building. But that was when Clinton was president, back before criticizing the saintly commander in chief was considered treason. Remember "wag the dog"? That's what you were saying about Clinton when he was fighting Al Quaeda!
You'll never get that the majority of people who oppose the war do so because they could see, and continue to see, how ill considered it was, how it hardly adresses American security at all-- it's ideological adventurism at its worst. It's nation building in a hostile nation. It has nothing to do with securing America.
You can say war opponents wish for defeat all you want; what we wish for is an administration with half an ounce of competence in persuing the enemies of America. This is not that administration.
Maybe a good first step would be a national dialogue in which tired accusations of defeatism and treason aren't tossed about everytime the hypocrisy and incompetence of your dear leaders is revealed.
[comment deleted - racist/homophobic content]
WW, in case you were ignorant of history (of course, that is a given)- the Marquis de Lafyette was a citizen and officer of the KINGDOM of France- the one that was bloodily murdered by the immediate ancestor of the current French Republic (which massacres they still celebrate every July 14). Using his name to claim French support of America is like using Mary Jo Kopechne's name in a Ted Kennedy campaign ad. Even if your rather humourous errors of history were correct, the French STILL owe us their nation twice over: we paid back whatever debt we may have owed in 1918, when the influx of American soldiers and material rescued the exhausted, mutinous French and English armies from drowning in their own blood; and then after rescuing them from the consequences of a Socialist, antimilitaristic government in World War Two we rebuilt their worthless nation at our own expense with the Marshall Plan.
Thanks for sharing your opinion of the men and women who serve this country. Now we all know where you stand and what your opinion's worth.
Well, the Americans who rescued the French came from a different country, too. The more things change ...
Timmeh
You're going to have to provide some proof that Buck Sargent was opposed to our intervention in Bosnia - otherwise it appears you're simply spouting ill-considered ignorance.
Don't know about BS (that's buck sgt but I like the acronym better) himself, but most of the wingnuts were all against that one from the very first day. Surely Greyhawk will recall the dire predictions of a broken military, of overstretched forces, of defeat.
Surely Greyhawk remembers when his Liar-as-Candidate called for "humility" in American foreign policy and said that the U.S. shouldn't engage in "nation building." That was all because the wingnuts had gotten their panties in a twist about Kosovo.
There is one thing they forgot, though. We won. And Serbia was every bit as well-armed, if not more so, as Saddam.
Actually I don't recall any such thing Willy, and I was active duty then too. The only real quote I remember was that "we'd be home for Christmas" (we're still there, the job isn't done) so please, post real quotes about "dire predictions of a broken military, of overstretched forces, of defeat." I'll even make a full post out of them, for the record.
I'll simplify the task - just give me quotes supporting "defeat".
Okey-dokey
http://w3t.org/u/qth
Now, in case that compilation by the Democrats is too "partisan" for you (imagine that!), here's something from the Republicans. Took them a whole week to denounce it!
http://w3t.org/u/qti
And here are miscellaneous other sources:
http://w3t.org/u/qtj
http://w3t.org/u/qtk
http://w3t.org/u/qtl
And for a particularly egregious example of wingnut hypocrisy, go here:
http://w3t.org/u/qtm
Repeat: just give me quotes supporting "defeat".
Still waiting.
In the meantime:
Seems like the ones who mattered were opposed to the massive bombing campaign, and in favor of sending in troops - but I don't see dire predictions of defeat.But I'm still waiting.
Timmeh, looks like you're having trouble coming up with some proof of Buck's opposition to Bosnia too. I'll let you and Willy both know, while I deleted Willy's racist and homophobic remarks I'm perfectly willing to let both your comment and his stand here for all time as a monument to your ignorance. The Geneva Convention doesn't stop you from humiliating or degrading yourselves, and I won't do it either.
Greyhawk, I said that conservatives and Republicans were opposed to intervention in Kosovo. Read my comment, then get back to me about my ignorance. It seems since ol' bubba left a lot of right-wingers have found nation-building, humanitarian intervention religion in the form of pipedreams in the middle east. Can you actually dispute that? Let me guess, 9/11 changed everything. Yeah, it sure did: it made a lot of wingnuts even dumber than they were before.
Here's what you said about a soldier in Iraq:
"Buck Sargent's critique could easily be turned against him"
Until you either prove he was against intervention in Bosnia or write a retraction and apology I'll delete any other comments you make here.
Buck's critique is that liberals were for american interventionism before the Bush administration. His critique could be turned against him; conservatives were against interventionism before the Bush administration. I never said he personally was against intervention in Bosnia. Get it?
What do I have to apologize for? I'm sick of hearing about fifth columnists, traitors, and the rest of that kind of rhetoric. As far as you making noise about homophobia in the comments, spare us.
My two cents on this subject, from a while back ...
It is interesting that such as these will support, or at least tolerate, LIMITED military force, as was seen in Kosovo, on three conditions:
America (though it provides the bulk of the force) must submit itself to the control of a "coalitiion" that will make sure it doesn't act in its own interest (right or wrong).
There must be NO WAY that Americans can engage in profitable enterprise from their presence in such a conflict, or her motives will ALWAYS be suspect.
The leadership that takes us into war, is on the same ideological track as today's critics ... and therefore the critics inherently trust them.
Other than that ... the planning doesn't matter, the provisioning doesn't matter, armor doesn't matter, troop strength doesn't matter, civilan casualties don't matter. Those aspects are no different in such a conflict than they are now in Iraq ... but because people like Halliburton MIGHT profit in Iraq, and/or progress in Iraq might validate to some degree the ideological viewpoint of conservatives, all these aspects are looked at under a microscope there, in stark contrast to the relative inattention given such details in places like Kosovo.
Face it guys ... if Bill Clinton prosecuted OIF, he would be hailed by critics ... and perhaps even yourselves ... as a visionary statesman by all but the mooniest of moonbats.
Simply because it is GWB (who you despise for other, unrelated reasons) that has risen to the occasion, and (finally) gotten America off her arse to ACT DECISIVELY, is why you and your ilk are PO'd.
IMO, part of that is fear -- fear that he will be recognized as doing the right thing, which will lend credence to the other things he believes in ... and get in the way of the moonbat dream for a society where your right to get high/get your jollies/get free Band-Aids(TM)/get a check/get by is "guaranteed" by taking others' right to get ahead.
BTW, at the time they were executed, I supported the actions in Kosovo, even though they had far less to do with our national security than does Iraq.
Greyhawk, your reference to the Geneva Conventions lack of prohibitions against the self-humiliation of moonbat trolls, through voluntary expressions of their ignorance, is priceless!
And their repetition only reinforces that!
Timmeh;
I consider Clinton's response to al qaeda as timid at best. bin Laden undoubtedly viewed it as a failure of western resolve and inherent weakness. He would be correct in that observation.
The matter of Kosovo was a response to the killing of innocent muslims, as I recall. Iraq involved the killing of innocents (muslims) and now Darfur involves the killing of innocents. The precent has been set.
It is a mystery to me that with the recent arrests in Canada of terrorists plotting to bomb public places and having ties to a terrorist cell in Georgia, people like timmeh fail to connect the dots. The dots point to a terrorist attack in the U.S. eventually along the lines of the busted plans in Britain and now Canada.
When this attack comes, what will timmeh say then?
You all take the rationale for the Iraq war for granted. Unfortunately, gentlemen, it is hardly a given that the Iraq campaign has contributed to the security of the United States. Any argument that it has lies on theories and rationalizations, not any kind of proof. That's the fundamental problem with our dialogue. Since I am "those people" to you, I am a traitor who wants the defeat of the US at the hands of terrorists. Well, that is not the case. It is clear to me and many, many others-- probably a majority of Americans-- that the war in Iraq is a strategic blunder of epic proportions, that is harming, not protecting, our country. So can you stop smearing all those who disagree with you as sympathizers with murderers? Thank you.
Greyhawk, sorry for the delay in posting. Your censorship of my posting for alleged "racist and homophobic content" made me spit my coffee on the keyboard, and I had to go buy a new one. Here is the corrected version:
THE BUCK SERGEANT AND THE FROG
The rest of the story
SGT: "Excusay-moi, monseniors. But do y’all happen to speak German?"
FROG:"Non, monsieur. We do not."
SGT: "Yer welcome!"
FROG: "Please pass my thanks to your father. Or maybe your grandfather?"
SGT: "Smart-ass!"
FROG: "Pardon, my friend, may I ask a question?"
SGT: "Shoot."
FROG: "All I want to do is ask a question. I have no wish to shoot you."
SGT: "Can’t you understand English? Ask yer damn question."
FROG: "I am so sorry, but I was not certain if you were an American or whether you are a British citizen."
SGT: "I’m an American, and proud of it."
FROG: "You’re welcome."
SGT: "What the hell?"
FROG: "I was referring to the Marquis de Lafayette. But for him, you would be a British citizen."
SGT: "The Marquis de What? Is that some limp-wristed Frenchy wimp?"
FROG: "Oh, pardon. You have not read your history."
SGT: "Reading’s for sissies. I know all the history I need to know. All the way back to January 20, 1981."
FROG: "1981? Why 1981?"
SGT: "Because that’s when Ronald Reagan became president. You’d be speaking Russian by now if Ronald Reagan hadn’t become president."
FROG: "So you are unfamiliar with 1962, or 1954?"
SGT: "Like I say, real men don’t read books. Real men watch NASCAR on TV."
FROG: "I am so sorry. In 1954 the French were defeated in Vietnam and in 1962 the French were defeated in Algeria. I am so sorry that Americans never knew. You might have learned something."
SGT: "We don’t need your stinkin’ history. We do things by our gut."
FROG: "Oh yes, the gut. We French love the gut! You have eaten here, no?"
SGT: "I don’t need no stinkin’ frog food. I go to McDonald’s. Love them craw-sants. You know them curved things? Good old American food."
Would terrorists have attacked the US anyway, had we not gone into Iraq? Yes. Better to force the enemies hand and put him on the defensive and reacting to what we do than to sit and wait to react to what he does...because by then it's already too late. Pre 9/11, that's all we were doing.
Strategic blunder? I think it's WAAAAAY to soon to even start discussing that. Tactical effects can be seen immediately to weeks, operational in months, strategic effects you don't see for years. The true fallout of whether Iraq was a failure or success wont' be evident for YEARS to come. This kind of thinking would have had us asking for terms from the Germans and Japanese after the fall of Bataan and Corrigedor and the debacle at the Kasserine Pass.
BTW, the 'proof' of not having WMD's is an easy thing to throw around now. That's the beauty of hindsight. It's never around when you REALLY need it.....
Repeat: just give me quotes supporting "defeat".
Still waiting.
Go back and actually read what I wrote. I wrote that the Republicans were all over the place predicting defeat. The quotes I offered support that characterization.
Were they "supporting" defeat? That's a matter of how one might read between the lines, but in any case I never made the accusation that the Republicans "supported" defeat. Only that they were openly defeatist right from the very start.
BTW, the 'proof' of not having WMD's is an easy thing to throw around now. That's the beauty of hindsight. It's never around when you REALLY need it
Three answers. One is that it's extraordinarily difficult to prove a negative. That said, at the time the UN inspectors were well on their way to doing it. Second is that your Liar-in-Chief, his Vice-Liar-in-Chief and their many spokesliars were making sweeping and specific allegations about WMD, such that the total lack of their presence makes it clear that it was all a pack of lies to begin with.
The third answer is on the relevance of the WMD to begin with. North Korea has WMD, and your Liar-in-Chief did nothing about it in spite of evidence that they not only have nukes but are a proliferator of nukes. Same for Pakistan, the so-called ally in the so-called global war on terror. And, of course, Israel has nukes.
But leave Israel aside, because to suggest Israel can do anything wrong is to be an anti-semite. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with significant fundamentalist influence, and North Korea is arguably the most represssive regime on the planet. If your Liar-in-Chief will do nothing about them, then even if Iraq did have WMD (which they did not), it's not a logical cause for war.
Not that the Bushbots ever needed logic. "Gut feel" is where it's at. How else to you explain attacking Iraq after we were attacked by Saudi Arabia?
"What do I have to apologize for? I'm sick of hearing about fifth columnists, traitors, and the rest of that kind of rhetoric. As far as you making noise about homophobia in the comments, spare us."
Posted by Timmeh at June 6, 2006 07:32 AM
If the shoe fits, Timmeh........
As for the homophobia, why is it only leftists and Dhimmicrats use it as an insult? Got some issues which you can only satisfy by trying to make others who disagree with you feel inferior in the sexual prowess area? Or is bad taste just a perpetual state for your thinking and behavior?
Subsunk
"How else to you explain attacking Iraq after we were attacked by Saudi Arabia?"
This may partially explain it.
Wow, subby, so you support gays in the military? We learn something new every day.
The problem with your theory is simple. The Liar-in-Chief can't read.
WW. You are right, a negative is hard to prove. THAT'S WHY WE WENT IN, TO MAKE SURE HE DIDN'T STILL HAVE THEM. When the stakes are that high, better to act and be proven wrong than to do nothing and be prover right. Saddam DID have WMD's as late as 1989 and 1990. He used them on his own people. Or did you forget that fact? The Gulf War I cease fire was put in effect with one of the conditions that Saddam was to fully disclose ALL of his WMD programs. A formal peace treaty was never signed. Only a state of armistace was in effect. For over 10 years, he did everything in his power to subvert the efforts of inspectors, and generally ignore the provisions of the cease fire. Resumption of hostilities could have restarted on that basis alone. So, he had WMD in the past, has used them and is acting as if he is hiding them. What else are we supposed to believe? If I know you have a gun and have publically used it before, tell me you have a gun and make moves that apper to me that you are hiding a gun, guess what, I'm going to act as if you had one whether you are bluffing or not. It was not a lie or a pack of lies by Bush (and a lie means that intent to deceive was there, and you have not proven to me that Bush 'lied'), it was a bluff on Saddam's part, and we fell for it. So he didn't have WMD's in the country as of 2003. Good. Now we know for sure, because we never would have known for sure if we didn't take action.
As for Israel having nukes, what's your point? I don't see them selling them to the highest bidder terrorist organization. Pakistan has them and as long as Musharraf is in charge, they are relatively secure (we can debate later what to do if he ever loses positive control of that country). He needs a happy US to keep control over that country and nukes to maintain the balance of power with India. To proliferate them would lose him both. Not in his best interest to do that. North Korea supposedly has them (although I have my doubts. They are, after all, a country that claims Kim Jong Il invented the microwave and has walked on the moon), but they are an entirely different situation than Iraq both politically and militarily.
armynurseboy - One additional thing to mention is that, even though Saddam did not have a stockpile of weapons as the world's intelligence claimed, by going in and taking out his corrupt government, we have exposed his illegal dealings with the United Nations, with whom he was conspiring to remove sanctions and start his WMD programs up again. This has been proven by documents, found by Coalition forces in Baghdad, which are still being translated. So far, it is clearly evident that, while Saddam apparently did not have stockpiles of WMDs in 2003, he was pursuing them (ie, he attempted to purchase uranium from Niger) and his WMD program would have been started up again within a few years had we not taken him out.
A good reference on the background of Saddam's ties to terrorism, in and of itself a reason to take him out regardless of WMD stockpiles, can be found here: Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror.
North Korea and Pakistan are known proliferators. Israel itself is heavily influenced by the Russian mafia and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they had some proliferators too, although I would doubt at the state level.
Your Liar-in-Chief has said nothing about Pakistan and done nothing about North Korea. That puts the lie to the WMD justification for invading Iraq, even if there was evidence that Iraq had the weapons. We now know that this "evidence" was phony from the get-go.
The Niger uranium story was a disinformation plot. Check the new issue of Vanity Fair magazine, which quotes nine former CIA analysts on the record. It's damning stuff, but none of you people care about facts so you'll deny these facts, too.
Ahem...actions agianst individual nations are decided upon by numerous factors, and no two actions are going to be exactly the same as no two nations are the same. Since when did we initiate a blanket policy that we are going to invade EVERYONE who has suspected WMD's. Not everyone requires it if there are other options available. And we TRIED for over 10yrs to get Iraq to play ball. Saddam chose not to...and they reaped the whirlwind of that decision
And and like ANYONE knew that the intel was wrong back in '03. Give me a freakin' break. Like I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing for armchair generals to wave around.....
Saddam didn't have WMD, and the Bush people knew it. That's why they went and phonied up the Niger "evidence" that never existed. As for North Korea and Pakistan, theire possession of WMD is well-documented by your Liar-in-Chief has done nothing.
So WMD was never the issue to begin with in Iraq. Ditto for terrorism. We sure as hell know it wasn't human rights. The mystery is what the issue actually was. All kinds of possibilities, but at the moment we can only guess.
But, like I say, it's good your president didn't like about blowjobs because then we'd have to impeach him. I was telling a friend of mine that that only way the wingnuts would disown him is if they caught him in bed with a Cub Scout.
But then there was "Jeff Gannon" the male prostitute who liked dressing in USMC camos and got into the White House 200 times on special passes unavailable to anyone else. The records show overnight stays. So I guess your guy can do anything he feels like.
Correction: " ... As for North Korea and Pakistan, their possession of WMD is well-documented but your Liar-in-Chief has done nothing. ..."
And as for that fake Niger yellowcake story:
http://w3t.org/u/r1d
"But, like I say, it's good your president didn't like about blowjobs because then we'd have to impeach him. I was telling a friend of mine that that only way the wingnuts would disown him is if they caught him in bed with a Cub Scout.
But then there was "Jeff Gannon" the male prostitute who liked dressing in USMC camos and got into the White House 200 times on special passes unavailable to anyone else. The records show overnight stays. So I guess your guy can do anything he feels like."
Posted by WW at June 7, 2006 07:46 PM
Again, Willy, it is so good to know that your sources tell you everything with such perfect clarity that you know everything the "Liar-in-Chief" does with such evil intent. Perhaps you ought to become a reporter for a big time newspaper instead of a mentally deranged conspiracy theorist with his own website where he constantly posts fabricated and made up stories to show his own sexual prowess. I bet you even got training at Berkeley on Soviet propaganda methods and how the "State" knows better than the proles and peasants who frequent "so-called Milblog" sites.
Because I'm just saying you know so much. Maybe we should appoint you dictator. You certainly have the dick part down and all you really need to work on is your 'taters.
Subsunk