Question their patriotism?

Wednesday, November 16, 2005
So Barone shrank from saying “the Democrats are being unpatriotic”? I won’t.

Listen, Senators Reid, Rockefeller, former Sen. Edwards, Sen. Kerry and your rhetorical allies: I have known many patriots. My son, fighting in Iraq, is a patriot. And you, sirs, are no patriots. You are actively betraying my son and his comrades. You are giving comfort to the enemy.

Have you no shame? No, I think not.

Rev. Donald Sensing, MAJ USA (ret.)


terrye said...

I have to admit, I doubt if a lot of those people even believe in patriotism.

My guess is they think it is a sort of primitive tribal ritual and the world would be better off without it.

So, yes I question their patriotism.

Knucklehead said...

I used to make a point of reading Sensing regularly. Then he went away for a while.

As with much else he choses to comment upon he is correct in this matter. They have no shame. Their patriotism is subject to question.

They choose to increase the edanger the Rev. Sensing's son and all the rest of our troops must endure by giving aid and comfort to the enemy leading him to fight harder and longer. Each time one of these idiots demands a timeline for "bringing the troops home" they increase the length of time they will need to stay and make each moment of it more dangerous.

They are seditious in intent and deed.

Peter UK said...

It is best to understand that patriotism is not the question,the question is do they have a shared humanity?
No,we are all merely extras in the grand drama that is their lives,props that can be arranged and moved hither and thither, with no more significance than a child arranging its toys,to be abandoned when something else catches their attention.
If a speech condemning the actions of troops can be used to gain attention for a politician,so be it,if some die because of that speech,it is regarded merely a the price which has to be paid.
You are looking at the new aristocrats,who have no more regard for their fellow men than the Aristos of pre-revolutionary France.
Patriotism? L'etat c'est Moi!

Seneca the Younger said...

It is best to understand that patriotism is not the question,the question is do they have a shared humanity?

No,we are all merely extras in the grand drama that is their lives,props that can be arranged and moved hither and thither, with no more significance than a child arranging its toys,to be abandoned when something else catches their attention.

Hmmm. Peter (Jamie, correct me if I'm wrong) but if I'm not mistaken, you've just described either massive narcissistic personality disorder, or straight out sociopathy.

markg8 said...

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform....The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years."

Knucklehead said...

Aug. 18, 2005.

On another Iraq-related issue, Hagel said Bush made the wrong decision by not meeting again with Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq who has camped outside the president's Texas ranch.

Sheehan "deserves some consideration, and I think that should have been done right from the beginning," Hagel said, noting that Bush did meet with her shortly after her son's death last year.

"I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her in to the ranch. It should have been done when this whole thing started. Listen to her."

Hagel is FoS. Just another seditionist a**hole.

Seneca the Younger said...

Well, Mark, I think if you read what Bush has said, or what Don Sensing said, you';d find they both agree that questioning the policy is entirely in bounds.

But that's not the issue. As Barone puts it:

"The Democrats are trying to relitigate the prewar intelligence issue in the hopes of delegitimizing this administration. But in delegitimizing the administration, they also tend to delegitimize the efforts of the U.S. government, including military personnel, in Iraq and generally in the war against Islamic terrorism. To the extent they delegitimize the United States, they are hurting the cause of freedom for millions of people. I do not say the Democrats are being unpatriotic, a word they seem fixated on. So far as I am aware, no responsible Republican has charged that they are unpatriotic; John McCain refused Bob Schieffer’s invitation to do so. But I do say this: The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of “Bush lied” are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country."

So, you pick: malicious liars, or lying fools who think that they would rather re-acquire power in a United States weakened and at greater risk than before?

That is the point on which I question their patriotism.

terrye said...

Today Bill Clinton, the man who wrote the Iraqi Liberation Act, came out and said the invasion was wrong.

These people are unprincipled.

Now I know that Democrats say, yes, Bill did write the Iraqi Liberation Act but he did not have the balls to actually pursue the policy, ergo he is innocent.

But I beg to differ, helping the create a situation when it is politically advantageous and then abandoning it when it is not is not shrewd or careful, it is mercenary and devious.

And Hagel is looking out for number one. He is a man who would be King.

markg8 said...

And from the other side this is the way we see it. As Kevin Drum put it so well over a year ago in a response to Jonah Goldberg:

"Remember, 2002 was quite a year. After a calculated display of bipartisan mourning for public consumption, the Bush administration thereafter refused to consult with or even take notice of the existence of an opposition party. Republican consultants advised their clients to use the war as a wedge issue in reelection campaigns and the Republican leadership declared rhetorical war on mild-mannered Tom Daschle. Andy Card talked about marketing plans for the Iraq invasion. The White House cynically proposed a union-busting plan for the Department of Homeland Security designed solely to arouse Democratic opposition. The President told cheering audiences that Senate Democrats didn't care about the security of the country and campaigned tirelessly even against congressmen who had supported him. In Georgia, Max Cleland was likened to Osama bin Laden.

And it worked: Republicans won the election. And Democrats finally woke up and realized that George Bush was more interested in using the war as a partisan club than he was in actually fighting terrorists. So they started fighting back. If the Republicans were intent on making it a partisan issue, after all, what choice was there?...

...from the very beginning, it's been clear that Bush wasn't trying to build bipartisan support, the normal course for a president embarking on a foreign war, but was instead using the war as a partisan club and a campaign issue, a way of dividing the Democrats and making them look weak on national security.

Despite the fact that this is a global war that requires broad support over long timescales, George Bush has not tried to gain Democratic support; he has not engaged seriously with the international community; he has not asked the American public for any kind of sacrifice; he has continued to push a divisive domestic agenda; he has shown little interest in funding anti-proliferation efforts; he has declined to put adequate resources into Afghanistan; he has done nothing to fix an intelligence operation that's quite obvously broken; and he has stonewalled every investigation into the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen.

So if you're going to talk about a "deliberate and cynical decision to make dividing the country a priority," let's be honest about who made that decision. I'll give you a hint: he's not a Democrat.

markg8 said...

Actually at this point I think Hagel just wants to keep from going back to being CEO of a voting machine manufacurer.

Knucklehead said...

More on the Seditionist Party...

Bill Clinton: U.S. Made a Big Mistake Invading Iraq:

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Former President Bill Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

Carter: Americans were misled on war

Friday, November 4, 2005;
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday that there isn't "any doubt" the American people were misled about the war in Iraq and that President George Bush's policy on the war is a "radical departure from the policies of any president."

The patriarchs of the Seditionist Party had their time as POTUS and their chance to deal with the rising threat of Islamist terrorism. Now its time for them both to STFU and let the current POTUS do his job. But they can't. They can't because their seditionist party won't allow it.

Rick Ballard said...

George Bush has not tried to gain Democratic support

No Dems voted for the authorization to use force?

he has not engaged seriously with the international community

There are 33 nations participating in the coalition. The lack of French whores and Russian backstabbers might be considered a plus to some.

he has not asked the American public for any kind of sacrifice

Those who have enlisted or agreed to serve as officer are responding to something. Sacrifice by every individual American is hardly necessary - any more than it was during the entire Cold War.

he has continued to push a divisive domestic agenda

According to about 20% (at most) of the population.

he has shown little interest in funding anti-proliferation efforts

False - anti-proliferation funding has been increased.

he has declined to put adequate resources into Afghanistan

??? Perhaps in the alternative universe that you call home but no one is complaining in this universe.

he has done nothing to fix an intelligence operation that's quite obvously broken

Except fire Tenet and replace him with Goss - for a starter.

"he has stonewalled every investigation into the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen."

Now, that's just plain stupid as well as false.

You are not a serious individual in the least, Mark. I don't think you fit in well here at all. There are other blogs where your point of view would be applauded. Spending time on those sites would probably be a better use of your time.

I won't be replying to you any more. You're a waste of time.

Peter UK said...

Mr Ballard,
Do read Jamie's post,all will be revealed.
"One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, [the researchers] suggested in a paper appearing in ... the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Not only do [the incompetent] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dunning."
To paraphase the song "The Boy Can't Help It"

terrye said...


If you think we need more resources in Afghanistan go ask the international community, after all it is an international effort.

As for Hagel, Bush carried Nebrasaka with 66% of the vote so maybe Hagel should start representing the views of his state rather than showing off.

Bush does engage other countries, in fact since he has been president we have actually had visiting heads of state who aren't Arafat.

But the devisive charge is really out of bounds, time and again Bush has reached out to the opposition and time and again he has drawn back a nub.

So maybe you really don't know what you are talking about.

terrye said...

How is Clinton going to keep that up when wifey poo voted for the invasion and he supported it?

Not to mention the fact that he bombed Iraq in 1998 on the grounds that Saddam would not give up his weapons.

When he said we should remove Saddam did he think he would just wave his magic wand [snicker] and make all the bad stuff go away?

I agree Clinton and Carter should shut up.

Seneca the Younger said...

Well, actually ...

Clinton's remarks came when he was taking questions about the U.S. invasion, which began in 2003. His response drew cheers and a standing ovation at the end of the hour-long session.

Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.

"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

So Clinton is saying the invasion was a Good Thing, but that mistakes were made in the post-invasion.

Now, one might argue with this: personally, it strikes me as if to suggest it would have been better for Germany if we had gotten rid of Hitler and left the Nazionalsozialisten in charge. But I don't think it can be rightly read as saying the invasion was a big mistake.

markg8 said...

Rick: suit yourself. Bribing Micronesia with a couple of Chevy Suburbans and Poland with helicopters isn't exactly building a coalition. Watching that coalition disintegrate isn't wise either. Count the number of countries that sent troops shortly after the invasion for rebuilding or peacekeeping purposes. Count the number that have or are removing their contingents. I am deadly serious sir, because of his own incompetence Bush is now losing the support of his party for the way he led us into and his conduct of the war. Because of his vicious partisan attacks, propensity to lie about every damn thing and sneering diplomacy he lost the other half of this nation and most of the rest of the world long ago. And the sad thing about it is we all have to suffer another 3 years of this.

The rest of you:

If Hagel is "showing off" then apparently he thinks it's in our or his best interests. Either way he's not the only Repub senator who is distancing himself from Bush. Have you seen what that desperate turd Santorum has had to say lately about Iraq?

You do yourselves and your party no favors by clinging to the fallacy that it's just politics as usual and sniping from the left that's his problem. HE is the problem. He's the one who hires clowns like Michael Brown and fires the Eric Shinsekis when they dare question his policies. And it worries the hell out of me that in the middle of two wars, when this nation needs wise leadership the most we have this petulant vindictive dry drunk who has been a failure at virtually everything he's ever done as president.

Peter UK said...

"petulant vindictive dry drunk who has been a failure at virtually everything he's ever done"
Hey we're back with the swimming instructor,sorry "wet drunk"
Sounds like projection again.

Syl said...

George Bush was more interested in using the war as a partisan club than he was in actually fighting terrorists.

This is a LIE!

And outright LIE!

It's playing politics with our nation's security. Criticize the policy NOT the policy maker.

This type of rhetoric is outrageous.

I mean SHUT UP and WIN THE WAR! Dammit

Seneca the Younger said...

Mark, you're getting your talking points from the markdown aisle. Shinseki was not fired, and in fact retired on his scheduled retirement date, a date he'd scheduled more than a year before.

It does, however, correspond very closely, down to wording, to the Democratic Party talking point from the last election --- one which would have required that Rumsfeild and the Administration know in April of 2002 that Shinseki would make this comment in February of 2003 in order to presciently set his retirement date to exactly the scheduled date of the end of his term.

terrye said...


You are full of it.

For anyone to say that Bush or Blair went into Iraq for political gain is utter nonsense.

And to call Bush a dry drunk who has failed at everything he has done is [as Syl said] a outright lie.

terrye said...


I made the mistake of reading a headline and thinking it actually represented the truth. I should have known better.

Knucklehead said...


You misunderstand the point of these memes which need be organized and presented thusly:

George Bush has not tried to gain Democratic support

The standard response to this, if one fails to understand the underlying message, is:

"Nonsense, look at the record of what Democrats said and how they voted. Clearly there was as much Democrat support as a Republican POTUS was likely to get."

But none of that has anything to do with "gaining Democrat support". He failed to gain Dem support because:

- he has not engaged seriously with the international community

He did not fall into line, follow carefully constructed international protocol, and "do business with" the international kleptocracy (of which the Democratic Party is just one famiglia). No bones tossed to Kofi, no doors opened for Mark Rich, no proper deals done with the EC, badmouthing Mugabe, all those bad form things.

This meme isn't about "diplomacy" in the normal sense. It's about diplomacy in the "you gotta let us wet our beaks" sense. Bush didn't play the payola game the way it was set up to be played International Kleptocrat Cabal through years of hard work during the Clinton Administration.

If you pay attention to the snarking retorts about the "coalition of the bribed" it quickly becomes obvious what the source of their consternation is. They don't approve of the "bribes" and who they went to. The bribes and recipients should have been very different. Bubba had that all hammered out and Dubya just went and screwed the pooch.

This was never about Halliburton. It was always about Total-Paribas.

- he has not asked the American public for any kind of sacrifice

This is my favorite domestic meme. The sheer chutzpah of it is admirable. What the seditionists are saying here is that not only did Bush fail to kiss the proper rings and grease the proper palms internationally, he has failed deliver unto the Democrats what they demand domestically.

What are these "sacrifices" they want from "the American people"? There's a floor, a limit, to the stupidity of even the Seditionist Party. They are, after all, minimally capable of using MS Word They aren't talking about rationing - they know there's no need for the American people to minimize sugar and tire purchases, turn in pots and pans and scrap to be used in the aircraft factories, collect string and rubber bands and donate a couple hours each Saturday to make bandages.

There are precisely two "sacrifices" the Seditionists want:

1) a draft. Without a draft they can never get That 60's Show back on the air. They just can't get the groovy hordes of flower power seditionists marching the streets unless they get a draft. Notice the intense frustration that leads them to make, again and again, a big deal of recruiting shortfalls of a piddling few percent - numbers in the low thousands for the US Army which is growing, as authorized by congress, and will exceed a half-million men by 2008. Their consternation over this is completely out of whack with the reality of "shortfall". There's a reason for that - they are losing hope of ever getting the draft they need to get the hordes into the streets. No draft, no hordes.

2) Tax increases. And this is the thing that proves to the Seditionist Party cadres, above all else, that Bush is a moron. Even his dad recognized that the standard payment for "Democrat support" is a tax increase. The Great Poker Player wouldn't even toss the ante on the table. This infuriates them no end.

markg8 said...

Syl tell it to Max Cleland who had his face morphed into Osama Bin Laden's in those TV ads back in 2002 for the treason of wanting Homeland Security Dept. employees to be paid better than Walmart shelf stockers. Cleland is a Vietnam veteran who will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair from wounds he suffered in that war.

markg8 said...

No knucklehead, here's the sacrifices he could make. CAFE standards for light truck and SUVs. It makes no sense that we do nothing to minimize using foreign oil from not particularly friendly places like Venezuela and Kazakstan. Engage the nation's energy companies in a "Apollo' program to wean us off the use of foreign sources of energy and eventually fossil fuels altogether.

Drop the permanent tax cut nonsense.
He only goy these cuts through the Senate by lying to Voinovich, Collins, Snowe and Chaffee about their expiration dates anyway.

If he really intends to stay in Iraq for another 2 or more years then revise Rummy's boneheaded transformation plan to reflect those needs. Rummy is trying to build a lean mean hi tech fighting force that can be run from Tampa like a computer game. What we need if we're going to liberate and occupy countries without much support of allies is a hell of lot more Arabic speakers and peacekeeper nation builder types. We need body armor and armored vehicles. We don't need a new hunter killer sub to destroy Osama's nonexistent fleet. We don't need to blow the budget on a few hugely expensive new fighter planes that won't be ready for another 10 years when nobody can compete with what we have now. We shouldn't have junked the ABM treaty to deploy a conservatively priced $60 billion dollar missile defense shield that doesn't even work.

If he wants to get serious those are just a few things he could do.

Knucklehead said...

Ooohhhh!!! CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs! That's the ticket to the Great National Sacrifice demanded by the Seditionist Party. Pardon me while I guffaw. You're not a barber, are you?

Oh, and of course, Drop the permanent tax cut nonsense. Always the bottom line for the Dems. Take more money from "those people" and give it to their "base". Its always some form of extortion - the only game they know how to play anymore.

And let's not forget the "Apollo Program" to "wean" us off "foreign" oil from "not particularly friendly places like Venezuela and Kazakstan".

Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform -- more at FUNCTION
1: being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation (oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities)

And "Rummy's transformation", let's not ignore that. How can we ever get back to a draft if we have a military that can often fight remotely using high-tech weapons? We need more "boots on the ground"! If we can't get more boots on the ground how we gonna get a draft? If we can't get a draft how we gonna get the hordes in the streets demanding peace, love, CAFE standards, and "weaning"?

CAFE standards. Gotta love 'em, the transparent fools.

markg8 said...

I'm glad you think it's so funny. You're not a knucklehead are ya? Oh yeah I guess you are.

Maybe you're too young to remember the oil embargos of the 1970s. Maybe you don't know Chavez recently had the Iranians in for a little chat. Here in Philly 42% of our oil imports come from Venezuela. He cuts that off and you're gonna look pretty silly in your Escalade.

"Take more money from "those people" and give it to their "base""

I thought you guys claimed the military as part of your base. I think body armor for our soldiers is mandatory. You think purple heart bandaids are funny. Well, you are a knucklehead.

Define fungible to the Chinese who are buying hard assets like oil wells all over the world from Canada to Sudan. Their communist translation may be a bit different than yours.

Knucks how do you propose to pacify a nation of 26 million people with 150,000 troops? That hasn't worked so far.

Building a video game army with high tech weapons isn't going to work very well anyway when the Army just announced they'll accept up to 12% of their incoming recruits from a pool who can't score 16 to 33 right on their 99 question general aptitude test. If you can't get 20 right on one of those tests I don't think you can tie your shoes let alone handle a rifle, not to mention
the hi tech toys.

How are we gonna get nmore boots on the ground without a draft? By shaming kunckleheads like you to support your president and fight his wars of choice.

Knucklehead said...

Yes, Mark, I am a knucklehead. Never claimed otherwise. Fortunately I'm not a moron - that's something that must really be tough to manage. How do you do it?

And yes, I remember the gas crisis. Pumped gas through it as a matter of fact. 10 gallons. Odd/Even. Hour after hour, evening after evening, weekend upon weekend. Fun times.

I also remember the Iranian hostage situation. Lived on alert for some of that. Kiss the wife and kiddies if you got 'em, guys, 'cause you're subject to immediate deployment and restricted to post until further notice. More fun times.

Jimmah - stupid then and stupider now. One of the great heroes of the Leftards.

What were you talking about, Mark? Oh yeah, your cafe standards. Have another slurp, it'll make you feel better. Have another slurp and you'll feel alright.

Peter UK said...

Do we have to read this moronic outpouring of serial non sequiturs.It is like being accosted by the town drunk, if markg8 wants to have his midlife crisis in public let him go elsewhere

"Here in Philly 42% of our oil imports come from Venezuela. He cuts that off and you're gonna look pretty silly in your Escalade.

"Take more money from "those people" and give it to their "base""

I thought you guys claimed the military as part of your base. I think body armor for our soldiers is mandatory. You think purple heart bandaids are funny. Well, you are a knucklehead.

Define fungible to the Chinese who are buying hard assets like oil wells all over the world from Canada to Sudan. Their communist translation may be a bit different than yours."

Argument by word association,can't he do joined up thinking?

Peter UK said...

Their lips are moving some clips of patriots addressing Weapons of Masss Destructio via Samizdata.
Are they now being economical with the Actualite'?

markg8 said...

Ok ya want the rebuttal? Do me a favor and don't delete the damn thing. That's cheating.

Let's see Henry Kissinger (Mr. "We have no permanent friends, just permanent interests") invites the ousted dying Shah of Iran to the US for cancer treatment and the mad mullahs leading the Iranian revolution seize the US embassy as a stunt to solidify the nation behind them. Carter sends the ill fated rescue mission that fails. Sadly not his best moment because it didn't work, but at least he tried. Ted Koppel of the oh so lefty biased msm makes a name for himself with his "America Held Hostage Day X" show on ABC News for a year running. The Ayatollah announces a week before our election he's open to a deal with the Great Satan Carter for the hostages and then leaves Jimmy hanging. Carter has to go on TV the weekend before the election and say to the country that there will be no deal before the election. A dead heat turns into a Reagan landslide by Tuesday. The Iranians subsequently release the hostages on Reagan's inauguration day. Coincidence or a nasty little secret October Surprise worked out on the sly by Reagan and Bush 1? Who knows? We don't because Dubya has sealed the records.

But let's move on and look at what we do know St. Ronnie did later in the 1980s. He secretly traded arms for hostages with the Iranians, even sending Ollie North with a birthday cake for the Ayatollah Khomeini along with the deal for Hawk missiles. That didn't work because Hezbollah just kept kidnapping Americans in Lebanon to keep the spare parts coming.

He sent the marines into Beirut with no particular mission in mind and left them sitting there as suicide bomber bait, getting over 200 of them killed. Then he withdrew them having accomplished nothing but instilling in the minds of jihadis everywhere that the toughest talking Americans are paper tigers.

He sent billions of dollars through the Pakistani ISI (their CIA) and encouraged the Saudis to do the same to fund the Afghanis in their war against the Godless Soviets. But that wasn't enough, he encouraged both the Paksitanis and Saudis to send their madrassa trained mujihadin to the fight. They
eventually morphed into the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

He sold chem and bio weapons precursers to Iraq and even brought Saddam's scientists over and trained them to how to make them. All kinds of nasty stuff from West Nile virus, anthrax to some of the deadliest toxins on earth. He provided Iraq with satellite imagery to show them Iranian troop disbursements so they could use their poison gas to best affect. He sold them the helicopters Chemical Ali used to gas the Kurds.

Yeah Jimmah sure looks weak compared to Reagan. The truth of the matter is this is all part and parcel of Republican nutbar foreign policy that has resulted in blowback every time they've been in power.

Knucklehead said...

What, pray tell, is it you seem to believe that incoherent rant "rebutted"?

Peter UK said...

Markg8 suffers from verbal diarrhea,it is debate by incontinence,Socrates would have been proud.
Best to keep a mop and bucket handy.

markg8 said...

"I also remember the Iranian hostage situation...Jimmah - stupid then and stupider now. One of the great heroes of the Leftards."

Adn where did Petey's silly post go? Must have been eaten by the same bug that eats mine all the time huh?

Knucklehead said...

Republican nutbar foreign policy

That would be stuff like:
- Bay of Pigs
- What's the Big Deal It's Just a Wall
- What Are Those Silos There in Cuba?
- Gulf of Tonkin
- Hey, McNamara. What we need there in Vietnam is a more assembly line approach to getting our boys killed, you think you could manage that?
- Operation Give 'Em an Embassy
- Operation Crash in the Desert,
- We're Keeping Our Olympic Team Home, That'll Larn Ya
- What's an Attack on the WTC Got To Do With Anything?
- They Don't Need No Steenking Armor in Mogadishu
- They'll Be Home By Christmas in the Balkans
- Operation Camels Arse Bullseye
- Aspirin Factory Blitzkrieg
- Did We Need Those Two Embassies?
- Somebody Send A Tug to Fetch the USS Cole

Stuff like that?

Peter UK said...

Senator McCain critices those who call for premature troop withdrawals from Iraq the main goal is to win first

Peter UK said...

It's their blog they can delete whatever they want,this isn't a public service it is private property.
If you don't like it, pay for your own.

terrye said...


I think I have mentioned before that people would be far more likely to read your post if you edit them.

That last one was far more of a commitment than I am willing to make.

markg8 said...

I just read it back to myself. It took me two minutes.

Well I wrote McCain today and asked what he means by victory too. I doubt I'll get an answer.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Two whole minutes? Try reading without moving your lips and running your finger down the screen.Are you sure you live in Medford New Jersey? It looks more like you live in "Deliverance" country.

markg8 said...

It took you over half an hour to think up that brilliant bit of 4th grade snark? If you have something worthwhile to contribute fine, then do it. Otherwise go in the bathroom and make mean faces in the mirror Petey because your insults aren't worth the bandwidth you're wasting.